Australian Politics Forum - First it's $70B now it's $10B

Gist Gold Member Offline I am not a sock, I am a human being! Posts: 5476	Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B Reply #15 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:45pm Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:38pm: There has been NO ONE (until Rudd/Gillard) who was anywhere near as bad as Whitlam. Howard is widely regarded as one of our best PM's ever. Yes both those views are commonly held by all Liberal party drones. So your point is...?
Back to top	"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration) IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #16 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:50pm

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #17 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:55pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #18 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 3:56pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was that tax revenue or tax rate

Wait you don't know the difference

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #19 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 6:34pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can we ahve Howard back now?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #20 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 6:36pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their tax cut compensation will be $3.

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

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

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #21 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 6:43pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their tax cut compensation will be $3.

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

GoddyofOz Gold Member Offline Vote 1 for Sex, cause you're gay if you don't Posts: 2397	Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B Reply #22 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 6:59pm I love how Maqqa is trying to paint a 10 billion dollar DEFICIT as any better then a 70 billion dollar one. A deficit is a deficit, and the fact it is coming from a Party that is supposed to be Conservative is a laughable joke.
Back to top	"A Conservative is a man who just sits and thinks, mostly just sits." - Woodrow Wilson. True Patriotism is serving your country all the time, and serving your Politicians when they deserve it. IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B Reply #23 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:03pm labor wouldnt have a clue, but the clue labor have left for the people is not to trust them and they are incompetent fools.
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #24 - Mar 18^th, 2012 at 7:07pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their tax cut compensation will be $3.

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

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

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

America is dead, FMD! [next!!] Shocked

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #25 - Mar 19^th, 2012 at 3:03am

The Great Big New Economic and Market Quiz

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

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

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

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

Question 1:

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

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

Question 2:

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

7

Question 3:

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

7 under the Coalition; zero under Labor.

Question 4:

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

5

Question 5:

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

Zero under the Coalition, 5 under Labor.

Question 6:

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

6

Question 7:

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

Zero under the Coalition, 6 under Labor.

Question 8:

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

1979-80.

Question 9:

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

2 out of 2.

Question 10:

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

None.

Question 11.

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

All 12.

Question 12:

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

4.25%

Question 13.

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

4.25% now; 4.0% after next week.

Question 14:

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

5.43%

Question 15:

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

4.72%

Question 16:

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

7.25%

Question 17:

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

7.48%

Question 18:

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

16

Question 19:

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

Coalition 10; Labor 6.

Question 20:

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

9 Coalition; 14 Labor.

Stephen Koukoulas

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

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

corporate_whitey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 8896
Archivist

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #26 - Mar 19^th, 2012 at 4:43am

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

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

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

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

Back to top

World Wide Working Class Struggle

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26080
Gender: male

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #27 - Mar 19^th, 2012 at 5:42am

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

corporate_whitey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 8896
Archivist

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #28 - Mar 19^th, 2012 at 6:44am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 19^th, 2012 at 6:51am by corporate_whitey »

World Wide Working Class Struggle

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26080
Gender: male

Re: First it's $70B now it's $10B
Reply #29 - Mar 19^th, 2012 at 5:12pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

You're a moron.

Back to top

IP Logged