The myth of Coalition economic management

Quote:

We need to stop passively accepting "truisms" that long ago ceased to be true, and we should start with the myth about the Coalition's superior economic credentials, writes Tim Dunlop. Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are on track to destroy one of the most commonly held beliefs in Australian politics, namely, that the Coalition are better economic managers than Labor. Indeed, smashing this "truism" may be one of their few lasting legacies. Still, even as they undermine it, it is remarkable to see just how sticky the myth is. For instance, during his recent speech at the National Press Club, Mr Abbott intoned: [quote]This government will deliver Australia's economic future because only a Coalition government can. As Liberals and Nationals, sound economic management is in our DNA. We've done it before and we are doing it again.

What's remarkable about this is not that he said it, or even that he believes it, but that his assembled audience of media heavyweights didn't burst out laughing.

I mean, what exactly does the government have to do before the press gallery and other distinguished commentators not only stop playing along with this little fantasy, but acknowledge that the Abbott Government is on track to be one of the most useless economic managers of modern Australia history?

It's not just that unemployment is rising and that the budget deficit persists; nor is it simply that the budget is stalled and in a complete shambles (imagine the conniptions sections of the media would be having if Labor were in this mess). It is that the Government simply don't seem to have a clue about what they are doing.

Take the Medicare co-payment. This was simultaneously sold as a way of staunching the budget deficit and as a way of creating a medical research fund. Talk about magic pudding logic.

The health portfolio is now onto its second minister and there have been, what, three other variations on the copayment theory? Tony Abbott now says the copayment itself is "dead, buried and cremated", but Tony Abbott says a lot of things.

Or take industry assistance. The government patted itself on the back about not offering grants to struggling industries and assured us that this was part of their tough, no-nonsense approach to curbing expenditure.

Great, except that as of this week, they've changed their mind. They are now providing up to half-a-billion dollars for the car industry, and as Laura Tingle noted on Twitter, they did it without so much as a press release.

These are not just adjustments brought on by a measured rethink or changed circumstances: they are incompetence, plain and simple, brought on by desperation and confusion.

But wait, there's more. Delayed payments for those on unemployment benefits is being reconsidered by new minister, Scott Morrison. The PM's precious "captain's call" parental leave scheme has been dropped. Defence have got the pay rise the government said they wouldn't get.

And this doesn't even include the measures that are simply being blocked by the Senate such as the inequitable higher education funding arrangements. The Government seems to have no clue as to what to do about that.

To top it all off, Joe Hockey has been "floating" little ideas about changing the way we access our superannuation. Tony Abbott has said that it is a "perfectly good and respectable idea", but even Peter Costello groaned:


Quote:

We went through all of this back in the mid '90s. We had a look at it, we decided, because we thought superannuation should be for retirement savings, we decided not to allow superannuation to be available for housing.

[/quote]
(continued)

Quote:

At this stage it is less the efficacy of the policies themselves that matters than the fact that the government flits like a drunken butterfly from one measure to another and back again, and back again, without any apparent governing logic. Look, it is important to stop retelling ourselves this ridiculous fable about the Coalition's economic credentials because it distorts so much of the rest of our political debate. Indeed, one of the reasons people are shocked - to the point of denial - about how bad the Abbott Government is at running the economy, is exactly because very few people ever called out the Howard government's economic failings. As economist Stephen Koukoulas noted back in 2012, Howard and Costello were accorded a respect their actual economic record didn't deserve: [quote]The budget papers ... show that the Howard government was the highest taxing government in Australia's history. In 2004-05 and 2005-06, the tax to GDP ratio reached a record high 24.2 per cent. In addition, there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. In a similar vein, in the last 30 years, there have been 10 occasions when the tax to GDP ratio has been below 22.0 per cent of GDP and all 10 were under a Labor Government. To put simply, the Howard government was a high taxer, while the current Labor Government is a lower taxer. In terms of government spending, there have been only five years in the four decades leading up to 2012-13 when real government spending was cut in real terms. None of those cuts were delivered by a Coalition government.

Maybe if these facts were better known, if they were hammered by the media in the same way they hammered 20-year-old stories about Julia Gillard's time as a lawyer, the incompetence of Messrs Hockey and Abbott would not have been such a well-kept secret.

So here's a suggestion. Who leads the government is an important matter and the media are right to cover it. But Tony Abbott's dying swan routine is one thing: the underlying incompetence of his government is something else altogether.

So can we reprioritise a bit? Can we please stop talking quite so much about the leadership mess that the government is in because in the end, it doesn't much matter who leads a bad government.

Let's instead start telling the truth about how bad they actually are, and let's begin by not passively accepting "truisms" that long ago ceased to be true. Let's actively challenge this damaging, childish myth about the Coalition's superior economic credentials.

It's great that some journalists are calling them out, but it is not enough as long as the myth persists.

The truth is, the only sense in which the Coalition are the better economic managers is the sense in which every parent thinks their kids are smarter and better looking than everyone else's kids: they may believe it in their hearts, but it doesn't necessarily stand up to objective, unsentimental analysis.
[/quote]

I find these facts to be particularly interesting:


Quote:

As economist Stephen Koukoulas noted back in 2012, Howard and Costello were accorded a respect their actual economic record didn't deserve: [quote]The budget papers ... show that the Howard government was the highest taxing government in Australia's history. In 2004-05 and 2005-06, the tax to GDP ratio reached a record high 24.2 per cent. In addition, there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. In a similar vein, in the last 30 years, there have been 10 occasions when the tax to GDP ratio has been below 22.0 per cent of GDP and all 10 were under a Labor Government. To put simply, the Howard government was a high taxer, while the current Labor Government [this is from 2012] is a lower taxer. In terms of government spending, there have been only five years in the four decades leading up to 2012-13 when real government spending was cut in real terms. None of those cuts were delivered by a Coalition government.

[/quote]
Coalition governments are higher taxing than Labor governments. Who would have guessed?

Rightards making posts that shoot the messenger in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...

I especially like this one



Bam wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:42pm:

in the last 30 years, there have been 10 occasions when the tax to GDP ratio has been below 22.0 per cent of GDP and all 10 were under a Labor Government.

:o :o :o

http://i1379.photobucket.com/albums/ah121/mcbellettecbellette/headdesk_zpspgpwjnnj.jpg

Care to rebut any of the points, Armpit?

The Kook and Dunlop are kind in not pointing out the huge structural Budget deficit Howard & Costello created nor the boom they fed that saw the household sector indebted to the eyeballs!

The myth of Coalition superior economic management still lives, propped up by an economically illiterate Canberra Press Gallery and the Murdoch press, yet it is taking a battering. A recession which is on the cards and the consequent Budget deficit blow out should see the myth die once and for all.

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:32am:

Care to rebut any of the points, Armpit? The Kook and Dunlop are kind in not pointing out the huge structural Budget deficit Howard & Costello created nor the boom they fed that saw the household sector indebted to the eyeballs! The myth of Coalition superior economic management still lives, propped up by an economically illiterate Canberra Press Gallery and the Murdoch press, yet it is taking a battering. A recession which is on the cards and the consequent Budget deficit blow out should see the myth die once and for all.

But what did Labor do about this? Remember - they had six years to fix this supposed disaster of zero debt and budget surpluses from the Howard/Costello years!!!  :D :D :D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:32am: Care to rebut any of the points, Armpit? The Kook and Dunlop are kind in not pointing out the huge structural Budget deficit Howard & Costello created nor the boom they fed that saw the household sector indebted to the eyeballs! The myth of Coalition superior economic management still lives, propped up by an economically illiterate Canberra Press Gallery and the Murdoch press, yet it is taking a battering. A recession which is on the cards and the consequent Budget deficit blow out should see the myth die once and for all. But what did Labor do about this? Remember - they had six years to fix this supposed disaster of zero debt and budget surpluses from the Howard/Costello years!!!  :D :D :D

Labor had a GFC to deal with, a hostile senate to get legislation past and had inherited a huge structural deficite from said Howard / Costello.

Last time I looked we have had a self labelled bad conservative government in power for around 18 months, Labor can not do anything now the problem belongs to the Lieberals who seem to lack the ability to do anything constructive.

Abbotts no blame government, Say what we will do and do what we say ?

.

We’ve done it before and we are doing it again.

Thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:12am:http://i1379.photobucket.com/albums/ah121/mcbellettecbellette/headdesk_zpspgpwjnnj.jpg
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2015-03/10/22/enhanced/webdr13/enhanced-10235-1426040457-1.jpg

Quote:

there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.

The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

But what did Labor do about this?

Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs.

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:55am: But what did Labor do about this? Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs.

It's worse than that ... some of the efforts that Labor did do to cut spending was REMOVED by the Liberals when they got in.

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Quote: there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses.

If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things...

Either they are not spending enough

OR

They are over-taxing.

Or both.

A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics.

FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation.

But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:55am: But what did Labor do about this? Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs.

Yes, pay off Keatings' $96bn debt and leave office with a string of budget surpluses plus more than $20bn in the bank. Shame Howard, shame! I'd call you an idiot, but you're too stupid to even understand what that means.

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 8:46am: Quote: there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES. Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses. If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things... Either they are not spending enough OR They are over-taxing. Or both. A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics. FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation. But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!".

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 11:55am: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 8:46am: Quote: there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES. Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses. If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things... Either they are not spending enough OR They are over-taxing. Or both. A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics. FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation. But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!".

Government is NOT a business, nor can it be run like one.

Nor does a govt budget bear ANY similarity to a household
or business budget in the way it works.

I stand by what I said, because it is correct.

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 11:55am: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 8:46am: Quote: there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES. Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses. If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things... Either they are not spending enough OR They are over-taxing. Or both. A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics. FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation. But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!".

Wow, that was pretty impressive ! 

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:44am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:12am:http://i1379.photobucket.com/albums/ah121/mcbellettecbellette/headdesk_zpspgpwjnnj.jpg http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2015-03/10/22/enhanced/webdr13/enhanced-10235-1426040457-1.jpg

You win the internet!

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 8:46am: Quote: there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES. Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses.

I did say "If you want a budget surplus". I'm not asserting that it's desirable. My point is that surpluses aren't free but come at a price. Your point is similar. Howard's government only got surpluses because they were the highest-taxing government we've had in the past 30 years.

My view is the budget should be balanced. No massive surplus, no massive deficit.

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:05pm: Kat wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 11:55am: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 8:46am: Quote: there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES. Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses. If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things... Either they are not spending enough OR They are over-taxing. Or both. A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics. FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation. But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!". Government is NOT a business, nor can it be run like one. Nor does a govt budget bear ANY similarity to a household or business budget in the way it works. I stand by what I said, because it is correct.

Sure it was petal, sure it was.  ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:41pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:13pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:05pm: Kat wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 11:55am: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 8:46am: Quote: there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES. Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses. If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things... Either they are not spending enough OR They are over-taxing. Or both. A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics. FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation. But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!". Government is NOT a business, nor can it be run like one. Nor does a govt budget bear ANY similarity to a household or business budget in the way it works. I stand by what I said, because it is correct. Sure it was petal, sure it was.  ;D

Well I'm sorry.  I thought it was.  Now you're dissing your own comment ?  Too sophisticated for me, then

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate)

An obsession with "tax cuts" is a blinkered view that is often driven by personal greed. A surplus is also an indicator that it is safe for the government to spend more money.

Tax cuts are not warranted even if a surplus was available. Not until the government addressed shortfalls in spending.

I would rather have new or upgraded infrastructure. Even better - nationalise all the toll roads. No more private taxation for driving on a road I also paid for with my government taxes!

I would rather see the government address the decades of miserable mistreatment of the unemployed. Nobody can survive for long on $260 a week, and the abolition of the CES has not worked. Increase the dole, bring back the CES, and address the criminal corruption within the JSA, VET providers and the like. Even better ... create some government-guaranteed employment.

I would rather the government invested more in health and dental care. Three words: BULK BILLING DENTIST.

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:53pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:25pm: A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate) An obsession with "tax cuts" is a blinkered view that is often driven by personal greed. A surplus is also an indicator that it is safe for the government to spend more money. Tax cuts are not warranted even if a surplus was available. Not until the government addressed shortfalls in spending. I would rather have new or upgraded infrastructure. Even better - nationalise all the toll roads. No more private taxation for driving on a road I also paid for with my government taxes! I would rather see the government address the decades of miserable mistreatment of the unemployed. Nobody can survive for long on $260 a week, and the abolition of the CES has not worked. Increase the dole, bring back the CES, and address the criminal corruption within the JSA, VET providers and the like. Even better ... create some government-guaranteed employment. I would rather the government invested more in health and dental care. Three words: BULK BILLING DENTIST

I'd vote for you

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 9:56am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:55am: But what did Labor do about this? Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs. Yes, pay off Keatings' $96bn debt and leave office with a string of budget surpluses plus more than $20bn in the bank. Shame Howard, shame! I'd call you an idiot, but you're too stupid to even understand what that means.

You don't get it.

The Howard government only got surpluses thanks to HIGH TAXES.


Quote:

The budget papers ... show that the Howard government was the highest taxing government in Australia's history. In 2004-05 and 2005-06, the tax to GDP ratio reached a record high 24.2 per cent. In addition, there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 1:01pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:01pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 9:56am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:55am: But what did Labor do about this? Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs. Yes, pay off Keatings' $96bn debt and leave office with a string of budget surpluses plus more than $20bn in the bank. Shame Howard, shame! I'd call you an idiot, but you're too stupid to even understand what that means. You don't get it. The Howard government only got surpluses thanks to HIGH TAXES.

And two mining booms. If Howard had inherited the economy Keating had, he would never have gotten those surpluses.

The economy during Howard's time was a success due to the reforms made by Keating.

All economic intervention by governments takes years to take effect. Keating's "recession we had to have" signalled an end to inflation and the economic bubble of the late 1980s - brought down by the 1987 Wall Street crash and the collapse of the Bonds, Skases, Warwick Fairfaxes, etc.

Howard was left with green shoots and good times.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 9:56am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:55am: But what did Labor do about this? Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs. Yes, pay off Keatings' $96bn debt and leave office with a string of budget surpluses plus more than $20bn in the bank. Shame Howard, shame! I'd call you an idiot, but you're too stupid to even understand what that means.

when you grow up you might learn how the real world works, until then, keep up the good work, your title of village idiot is all you have.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 11:55am: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 8:46am: Quote: there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES. Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses. If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things... Either they are not spending enough OR They are over-taxing. Or both. A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics. FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation. But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!".

tell me again why your business failed? Howard sold the income producing sections of the business, whilst signing up long term debt. How do you pay the debt when the income is no longer there?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:

This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner

A successful business uses debt to increase income & therefore profitability.


If you have to ask how best stick to C&P'ing the Daily Telegraph Teaspoon.

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:39pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 11:55am: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 8:46am: Quote: there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES. Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses. I did say "If you want a budget surplus". I'm not asserting that it's desirable. My point is that surpluses aren't free but come at a price. Your point is similar. Howard's government only got surpluses because they were the highest-taxing government we've had in the past 30 years. My view is the budget should be balanced. No massive surplus, no massive deficit.

Not you, Bam, but the general cacophony coming from the conservatives and the media.

Sorry.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 9:56am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:55am: But what did Labor do about this? Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs. Yes, pay off Keatings' $96bn debt and leave office with a string of budget surpluses plus more than $20bn in the bank. Shame Howard, shame! I'd call you an idiot, but you're too stupid to even understand what that means.

Howard & Costello did not leave with a surplus but with a structural Budget deficit. And a highly indebted household sector.

The “Keating” debt of $70Bn was about 40% Treasurer Howard debt.

The coalition being the better economic manager is a myth.

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:53pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:25pm: A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate) An obsession with "tax cuts" is a blinkered view that is often driven by personal greed. A surplus is also an indicator that it is safe for the government to spend more money.

I love it, to want to keep the fruits of your labour is greed, yet it is not greed to want to take the money of others? What a backward world we live in..... :-/

It's easy to act generous and virtuous when you are spending the money of others.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:32am: Care to rebut any of the points, Armpit? The Kook and Dunlop are kind in not pointing out the huge structural Budget deficit Howard & Costello created nor the boom they fed that saw the household sector indebted to the eyeballs! The myth of Coalition superior economic management still lives, propped up by an economically illiterate Canberra Press Gallery and the Murdoch press, yet it is taking a battering. A recession which is on the cards and the consequent Budget deficit blow out should see the myth die once and for all. But what did Labor do about this? Remember - they had six years to fix this supposed disaster of zero debt and budget surpluses from the Howard/Costello years!!!  :D :D :D

Labor cut out the Baby Bonus and means tested the private healthcare rebate and started taxing those retired on huge incomes from super. The Libs reversed that last measure. What else they could do from minority govt against an Opposition just wanting to block I don’t know. They did impose a stream of efficiency dividends on the PS as well.

That was a rhetorical question, St George. It’s Armchair’s default response to any government criticism.

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 4:09pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:53pm: Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:25pm: A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate) An obsession with "tax cuts" is a blinkered view that is often driven by personal greed. A surplus is also an indicator that it is safe for the government to spend more money. I love it, to want to keep the fruits of your labour is greed, yet it is not greed to want to take the money of others? What a backward world we live in..... :-/ It's easy to act generous and virtuous when you are spending the money of others.

A poor response. By the same argument, anyone who gets money from someone else is spending other people's money.

Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit.

Karnal wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

That was a rhetorical question, St George. It’s Armchair’s default response to any government criticism.

I am not letting any Lib supporter get away with lies and bulldust!

Howard and Costello fed a red hot credit–fuelled real estate boom and p!ssed up against the wall the $350Bn of boom time revenues. The tax cuts and wealthfare the two idiots built into the Budget make achieving a surplus impossible until they are removed. Gillard/Swan did what they could from minority govt, the shambles is flailing around cluelessly and in doing so destroyed the NBN and the renewable energy sector that offered a way forward to a non–mining dominated economy.

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 4:09pm: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:53pm: Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:25pm: A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate) An obsession with "tax cuts" is a blinkered view that is often driven by personal greed. A surplus is also an indicator that it is safe for the government to spend more money. I love it, to want to keep the fruits of your labour is greed, yet it is not greed to want to take the money of others? What a backward world we live in..... :-/ It's easy to act generous and virtuous when you are spending the money of others. A poor response. By the same argument, anyone who gets money from someone else is spending other people's money. Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit.

The difference is one is voluntary interaction and free trade/exchange the other is taking from people without permission. My point still stands, you fools say that wanting to keep the money you earn is greed but not wanting to take the money other people earn.

Yes the government can do as it sees fit that doesn't make it right, efficient, necessary or desirable.

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 7:09pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:59pm: Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 4:09pm: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:53pm: Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:25pm: A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate) An obsession with "tax cuts" is a blinkered view that is often driven by personal greed. A surplus is also an indicator that it is safe for the government to spend more money. I love it, to want to keep the fruits of your labour is greed, yet it is not greed to want to take the money of others? What a backward world we live in..... :-/ It's easy to act generous and virtuous when you are spending the money of others. A poor response. By the same argument, anyone who gets money from someone else is spending other people's money. Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit. The difference is one is voluntary interaction and free trade/exchange the other is taking from people without permission. My point still stands, you fools say that wanting to keep the money you earn is greed but not wanting to take the money other people earn. Yes the government can do as it sees fit that doesn't make it right, efficient, necessary or desirable.

Rubbish. You grant implicit permission for being taxed by living here. If you want to revoke your permission and want to live in a country where a government doesn't raise enough taxes for the people's needs, emigrate to Somalia.

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Rubbish. You grant implicit permission for being taxed by living here. If you want to revoke your permission and want to live in a country where a government doesn't raise enough taxes for the people's needs, emigrate to Somalia.

Woooow move to Somalia and the social contract myth in one post! Hang on let me just get my statist bingo card out.  ;)

You know there's no logic to what you just said right? We on the internet call that trolling.
I kindly ask you as the advocate of coercion, force and violence to prove this implicit social contract.

---

Spending during the GFC was focused on one off stimulus unlike the tax cuts and concessions introduced by the Howard Government (mostly to high income earners) that caused a structural deficit in the budget....The Abbott Government removed revenue streams such as the carbon and mining taxes yet kept most of the associated compensation....The big ticket items such as GONSKI and the NDIS were supported by the Coalition on a unity ticket and have not been introduced yet....The Coalitions answer to the GFC was more tax cuts not stimulus which would have reduced revenue even further....Claiming the Coalition are better economic managers does not pass scrutiny when their only solution is tax cuts for the rich!!!

:-? :-? :-?


Quote:

Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull also argues that the stimulus is a "sugar hit" for the economy, one that may prove effective in the short-term, but ineffectual over the long term. Mr Turnbull says the better alternative to hand-outs would have been tax cuts, spreading the benefits over a longer period of time and over a broader cross-section of the economy. Yet most economists have pointed out that there is negligible difference between the alternative proposals and that tax cuts are most likely to benefit the wealthy who would be more likely to save than spend them. What Mr Turnbull is failing to say is that the situation is so bad that, without an economic stimulus, Australia will suffer an immediate shock to the system which will worsen the situation. http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=3807

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 4:38pm: That was a rhetorical question, St George. It’s Armchair’s default response to any government criticism. I am not letting any Lib supporter get away with lies and bulldust! Howard and Costello fed a red hot credit–fuelled real estate boom and p!ssed up against the wall the $350Bn of boom time revenues. The tax cuts and wealthfare the two idiots built into the Budget make achieving a surplus impossible until they are removed. Gillard/Swan did what they could from minority govt, the shambles is flailing around cluelessly and in doing so destroyed the NBN and the renewable energy sector that offered a way forward to a non–mining dominated economy.

Yes, but Labor were in power for 6 years, so that trumps everything you just said.

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Rubbish. You grant implicit permission for being taxed by living here. If you want to revoke your permission and want to live in a country where a government doesn't raise enough taxes for the people's needs, emigrate to Somalia. Woooow move to Somalia and the social contract myth in one post! Hang on let me just get my statist bingo card out.  ;) You know there's no logic to what you just said right? We on the internet call that trolling. I kindly ask you as the advocate of coercion, force and violence to prove this implicit social contract.

Why doesn’t your bingo card have move to Amerika on it, Vuk?

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Rubbish. You grant implicit permission for being taxed by living here. If you want to revoke your permission and want to live in a country where a government doesn't raise enough taxes for the people's needs, emigrate to Somalia. Woooow move to Somalia and the social contract myth in one post! Hang on let me just get my statist bingo card out.  ;) You know there's no logic to what you just said right? We on the internet call that trolling. I kindly ask you as the advocate of coercion, force and violence to prove this implicit social contract.

A typical idiotic response from you. Starting with the ridiculous proposal that tax is "taking from people without permission" ... and all downhill from there.

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 10:45pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:55pm: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Rubbish. You grant implicit permission for being taxed by living here. If you want to revoke your permission and want to live in a country where a government doesn't raise enough taxes for the people's needs, emigrate to Somalia. Woooow move to Somalia and the social contract myth in one post! Hang on let me just get my statist bingo card out.  ;) You know there's no logic to what you just said right? We on the internet call that trolling. I kindly ask you as the advocate of coercion, force and violence to prove this implicit social contract. A typical idiotic response from you. Starting with the ridiculous proposal that tax is "taking from people without permission" ... and all downhill from there.

Then please....enlighten me.....how is it voluntary with permission? Pro Tip: It's not.

A quick question also, if I explicitly reject this "social contract" why must I without harming anyone move across the world to another state (or stateless Antarctica)? What legitimacy does a fictitious entity like the state have in claiming ownership over anything much less the right to use force and coercion over people within it's arbitrarily drawn lines? (ie the geographic area the gang operates)

PS. Throwing around adjectives like "idiotic" or "ridiculous" does not count as a logical rebuttal or proof of anything.

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit.

Hilarious. So if a government decides it's gas chambers for "progressives" and leftards?

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 12:44am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 10:45pm: Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:55pm: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Rubbish. You grant implicit permission for being taxed by living here. If you want to revoke your permission and want to live in a country where a government doesn't raise enough taxes for the people's needs, emigrate to Somalia. Woooow move to Somalia and the social contract myth in one post! Hang on let me just get my statist bingo card out.  ;) You know there's no logic to what you just said right? We on the internet call that trolling. I kindly ask you as the advocate of coercion, force and violence to prove this implicit social contract. A typical idiotic response from you. Starting with the ridiculous proposal that tax is "taking from people without permission" ... and all downhill from there. Then please....enlighten me.....how is it voluntary with permission? Pro Tip: It's not. A quick question also, if I explicitly reject this "social contract" why must I without harming anyone move across the world to another state (or stateless Antarctica)? What legitimacy does a fictitious entity like the state have in claiming ownership over anything much less the right to use force and coercion over people within it's arbitrarily drawn lines? (ie the geographic area the gang operates) PS. Throwing around adjectives like "idiotic" or "ridiculous" does not count as a logical rebuttal or proof of anything.

Because it IS ridiculous. If you don't like having silly arguments being called out for what they are, don't post them.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 6:38am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:59pm: Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit. Hilarious. So if a government decides it's gas chambers for "progressives" and leftards?

You would be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Bam wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 8:06am:

Because it IS ridiculous. If you don't like having silly arguments being called out for what they are, don't post them.

The last vestige of someone with no argument is to hurl insults and adjectives.

If it's ridiculous then you should have no trouble proving your point and rebutting mine.

Bam wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 8:07am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 6:38am: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:59pm: Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit. Hilarious. So if a government decides it's gas chambers for "progressives" and leftards? You would be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you.

Because it goes against every Australian and international law, that's why. You didn't think it through did you?

John Smith wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 10:32pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you. Because it goes against every Australian and international law, that's why. You didn't think it through did you?

Bam made the original claim.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 10:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 10:32pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you. Because it goes against every Australian and international law, that's why. You didn't think it through did you? Bam made the original claim.

Bam didn't take it to ridiculous extremes.

John Smith wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 10:38pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 10:36pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 10:32pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you. Because it goes against every Australian and international law, that's why. You didn't think it through did you? Bam made the original claim. Bam didn't take it to ridiculous extremes.

Then he should have made a caveat.

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things... Either they are not spending enough OR They are over-taxing. Or both. A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics.

Agreed. A surplus is actually a waste of opportunity. It means that there are infrastructure that could be built that is not.



Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation.

Debt is also a waste - a waste of money. Debt comes with interest repayments.

The best scenario is that the government spends exactly what it accrues. Borrowing money should only be done in absolute emergencies.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 10:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 10:38pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 10:36pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 10:32pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you. Because it goes against every Australian and international law, that's why. You didn't think it through did you? Bam made the original claim. Bam didn't take it to ridiculous extremes. Then he should have made a caveat.

he probably thought he was talking to adults .... his mistake

Counts you out.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 11:25pm:

Counts you out.

irrelevant ....  he wasn't talking to me anyway.  :D :D

Karnal wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:59pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:13pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 4:38pm: That was a rhetorical question, St George. It’s Armchair’s default response to any government criticism. I am not letting any Lib supporter get away with lies and bulldust! Howard and Costello fed a red hot credit–fuelled real estate boom and p!ssed up against the wall the $350Bn of boom time revenues. The tax cuts and wealthfare the two idiots built into the Budget make achieving a surplus impossible until they are removed. Gillard/Swan did what they could from minority govt, the shambles is flailing around cluelessly and in doing so destroyed the NBN and the renewable energy sector that offered a way forward to a non–mining dominated economy. Yes, but Labor were in power for 6 years, so that trumps everything you just said.

This is a universal get out of jail card that the adults in charge should be able to use till at least 2083.

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate)

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so.


Not when the surplus is based on an unsustainable income source. Tax cuts are long term reductions in government income. The tax cuts we had were based on the economic boom of the time, as soon as the boom finished income dropped and the same tax cuts previously put in place were no longer affordable.

They had committed to spending money in the future which was never going to be available, this created a structural failure.

The Howard / Rudd tax cuts locked Australia into a future economic disaster.

You can only get away with reducing tax rates in boom periods if you accept that you will need to increase taxes in non boom periods. There are better ways to return excess money which is not reliable into the future withy one off infrastructure spends.

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate)

not when the surplus comes about because of a temporary boom.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 8:07am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 6:38am: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:59pm: Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit. Hilarious. So if a government decides it's gas chambers for "progressives" and leftards? You would be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you.

No. It's a stupid and offensive question based on a hypothetical situation that won't ever happen and is irrelevant to the topic. I don't answer stupid questions.

Bam wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Bam wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 8:07am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 6:38am: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:59pm: Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit. Hilarious. So if a government decides it's gas chambers for "progressives" and leftards? You would be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you. No. It's a stupid and offensive question based on a hypothetical situation that won't ever happen and is irrelevant to the topic. I don't answer stupid questions.

Why would we need gas chambers when we socially disadvantage, disempower and criminalise people of s chosen group at whim and at will?

Once so handled they have zero 0ower anyway - even the power to earn and prosper.... let alone change anything that is wrong.....

That, Grasshopper, is why we've always had a savagely distorted law system here..... including tax etc.  The principle is the more you can keep down the more you can garner the cream for yourself.

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Quote: there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government. The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

And sell off lucrative government assets that deliver a short term gain but thereafter immediately stop delivering income to the government. Just an appallingly stupid thing to do, let alone by someone claiming to have superior economic skills.

Julius Abbott wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 10:43pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 11:55am: If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things... Either they are not spending enough OR They are over-taxing. Or both. A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics. Agreed. A surplus is actually a waste of opportunity. It means that there are infrastructure that could be built that is not.

It depends on the size of the surplus. If the Federal government had a small surplus less than 0.1% of GDP, that could simply be a sign of a balanced budget.


Julius Abbott wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 10:43pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 11:55am: FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation. Debt is also a waste - a waste of money. Debt comes with interest repayments. The best scenario is that the government spends exactly what it accrues. Borrowing money should only be done in absolute emergencies.

I disagree. If the price of money is less than the expected return to be gained by investing it, the money should be borrowed and invested.

The 10-year bond rate is currently 2.55% (roughly equal to inflation). After subtracting inflation, the price of government borrowing is essentially zero. At this rate of return, just about any investment that returned a net profit to the economy would be viable. Investing in infrastructure to increase productivity would be beneficial - upgrading roads and rail to relieve congestion hot spots, building the real NBN to relieve internet congestion and so on. Instead we have a Federal government obsessed with debt, paying too much attention to the price while having no concept of value.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 11:51pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:25pm: A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate) A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. Not when the surplus is based on an unsustainable income source. Tax cuts are long term reductions in government income. The tax cuts we had were based on the economic boom of the time, as soon as the boom finished income dropped and the same tax cuts previously put in place were no longer affordable. They had committed to spending money in the future which was never going to be available, this created a structural failure. The Howard / Rudd tax cuts locked Australia into a future economic disaster. You can only get away with reducing tax rates in boom periods if you accept that you will need to increase taxes in non boom periods. There are better ways to return excess money which is not reliable into the future withy one off infrastructure spends.

Agree - Costello's biggest mistake was introducing permanent funding measures paid for with temporary revenue.

He would have been better off doing one of two things -

1. Investing in infrastructure - as you suggested. However, this would have been a bad idea at the time because this would have stimulated an economy that was already running too hot in some sectors. Quarantining the money in an infrastructure fund may have been better.
2. Placing the money in the Future Fund. Costello created the Future Fund, yet did not place the boom money into it.

Bam wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 10:02am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 11:51pm: Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 12:25pm: A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate) A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. Not when the surplus is based on an unsustainable income source. Tax cuts are long term reductions in government income. The tax cuts we had were based on the economic boom of the time, as soon as the boom finished income dropped and the same tax cuts previously put in place were no longer affordable. They had committed to spending money in the future which was never going to be available, this created a structural failure. The Howard / Rudd tax cuts locked Australia into a future economic disaster. You can only get away with reducing tax rates in boom periods if you accept that you will need to increase taxes in non boom periods. There are better ways to return excess money which is not reliable into the future withy one off infrastructure spends. Agree - Costello's biggest mistake was introducing permanent funding measures paid for with temporary revenue. He would have been better off doing one of two things - 1. Investing in infrastructure - as you suggested. However, this would have been a bad idea at the time because this would have stimulated an economy that was already running too hot in some sectors. Quarantining the money in an infrastructure fund may have been better. 2. Placing the money in the Future Fund. Costello created the Future Fund, yet did not place the boom money into it.

Since when did any politician ever make a valid decision on reserving money for any specific purpose?

They all assume that consolidated revenue is just some endless source of funding for their ideology or pet ideas... and it's:-

"Oh - so sorry!  Not enough in the till after paying for the Equal Rights of Agitanians to Secure Lucrative Business out of Government Sell-outs - and so forth - to pay for the needed roads, pensions, etc."

Selfish idiots the lot of them.

Bam wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 9:42pm: Bam wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 8:07am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 6:38am: Bam wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:59pm: Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit. Hilarious. So if a government decides it's gas chambers for "progressives" and leftards? You would be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you. No. It's a stupid and offensive question based on a hypothetical situation that won't ever happen and is irrelevant to the topic. I don't answer stupid questions.

Just admit that the government cannot do what it wants with tax payers' money.

Another problem for the Abbott Government is getting the fuel excise tax through the Senate...If they fail to pass this legislation then taxpayers will have to repay millions of dollars to big oil companies....Good economics is something this Liberal Government has trashed!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Another problem for the Abbott Government is getting the fuel excise tax through the Senate...If they fail to pass this legislation then taxpayers will have to repay millions of dollars to big oil companies....Good economics is something this Liberal Government has trashed!!! ::) ::) ::)

If they keep abusing taxpayers' money like this, they should be denied access to that money until the people have a say on the matter.

It is time to block supply and force an election.

Anyone got a list of which governments and of what persuasion have created the most surpluses and deficits?

Grendel wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 2:36pm:

Anyone got a list of which governments and of what persuasion have created the most surpluses and deficits?

Someone posted that here last week or the week before.

The Libs were NOT shown in a good light.

At all.

Kat wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 4:27pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 16th, 2015 at 2:36pm: Anyone got a list of which governments and of what persuasion have created the most surpluses and deficits? Someone posted that here last week or the week before. The Libs were NOT shown in a good light. At all.

Gotta link Kat?