Cruel to be kind, just in the wrong measure
Updated
Conservatives love the cruel to be kind motif and will apply it to the Budget. But the economy is not some metaphorical thing, it actually involves people's lives, and the poorest among us will be the hardest hit, writes Greg Jericho.
The first budget for any treasurer is a big moment - it sets out his view of the world and lets everyone know who he values and who he thinks deserves a kick - and Joe Hockey found plenty to kick.
Peter Costello's first budget speech was delivered with him blissfully unaware that his time as treasurer would coincide with the biggest sustained minerals boom this country has ever seen (mining didn't even rate a mention). His speech clearly laid out his vision, suggesting it built a "future that offers sustainable growth, more jobs and higher living standards".
Eleven years later his final budget speech ended on much the same note, concluding, "We must now lock in the progress of the last decade if we want to keep our living standards high. From this position we can step out to meet the challenges of the future with purpose and confidence."
Wayne Swan's first budget speech was delivered at a time when the GFC was in embryonic stage - casually referred to as a "credit crunch" and he, like we, remained unaware that his time as treasurer would coincide with the world's worst recession for 80 years.
He began by stating that "this budget is designed to meet the big challenges of the future." That first Swan budget was anticipated to see spending decline by 1 per cent of GDP, and revenue fall by 0.8 per cent of GDP.
I don't need to tell you it didn't end up that way - revenue fell by 1.8 per cent of GDP and expenditure rose by 2 per cent of GDP.
Swan concluded his first budget speech arguing it was "a Labor budget for the nation. For Australia's future. For all Australians".
He ended his final budget speech in much the same way, concluding that, "creating prosperity and spreading opportunity are the values that drive this Labor government every single day."
So what is it that drives the Liberal-National Government?
Hockey has tried out a few lines in the weeks ahead of the Budget - including laughably trying to suggest a tax increase was not a broken promise about no tax increases. But by Monday he had settled on the eminently forgettable line of "contribution and build budget".
It sounded as stimulating as being told to eat a bowl of bran each day to keep you regular. And in essence that is what the Government would have you believe is happening.
After the wild long night out dining with the corpulent ALP government, the binge is over and the fiscal hangover must be dealt with.
And so Hockey began his speech last night saying, "Our future depends on what we as a nation do today. For our children, for our seniors, for individuals, for families, for our disabled and for our frail, for all of us, the Government's solemn duty is to build a stronger Australia."
Except this disguises that individuals, families, disabled are among the ones being hit.
Conservatives love the cruel to be kind motif. They use it on asylum seekers and now they are using it on the economy. Except the economy, just like asylum seekers, is not really some vague metaphorical thing, it actually involves people's lives.
We're told that we're all sharing in the pain, but who really is affected by this? The increase in the fuel tax levy, while welcome in undoing one of the worst budgetary decisions by Howard and Costello, will hurt lower-middle income earners the most as they spend more of their income on petrol than those on higher incomes.
Conversely although lower incomes spend less on GP visits, mostly this is because they are more likely to be bulk billed. And given the fee is a flat $7 regardless of income, it will hurt you more the less you earn, unlike the Medicare levy.
The wealthy will be the ones most hurt by changes to HECS and any increases in uni fees that will occur due to proposed changes (all up saving $3.1 billion over fours year), but given higher education is viewed as a way to improve your lot in life, it is actually an instance of a tax on aspiration that the Liberal Party used to accuse the ALP of.
But of course there is to be a 2 per cent increase on the tax rate for those earning more than $180,000. Yes the roughly 300,000 people who earn more than this amount will feel it. However, before you start organising a telethon for such people, remember that for someone on $200,000 the extra $400 they will have to pay represents just a 0.2 per cent increase in the amount of income tax they pay.
At least this Budget finally saw the Liberal party realise that there was a revenue problem. During the election they thought there was no such thing. Back then they used to like using this graph:
Now such a graph would look like this:
Of course in a more honest representation - using revenue as a percentage of GDP - it looks like this:
But at least Hockey and Tony Abbott now realise (even if they will never say it), that there really wasn't much fat in the "middle-class" welfare budget. Reducing the income threshold of Family Tax Benefit B to $100,000 saves on average only $415 million a year.
That's really the fat in a budget with spending of $412 billion?
These cuts are also not really targeted at those earning above average incomes. Cutting the threshold to those on $100,000 sounds like a sensible place to cut - if you were thinking of a single person. But as I noted last week, a household income of $100,000 with two or three kids is really just above the median level.
So piddling were these savings the Government had to go further and cut the payments for families once kids turn six, and also freeze the indexation.
Even still the biggest individual saving is achieved cutting the foreign aid budget.
But while families were in the firing line, for this Government the real class warfare is those on government assistance - especially the disabled and unemployed.
I've written previously how the argument about the blowout in Disability Support Pensions is largely about the ageing population. But the changes to unemployment benefits for those under 25 are just a re-run of the usual conservative canard that youth on the dole are slackers who don't want to work.
The reality is the ratio of youth unemployed to total unemployed is now lower than at any time in the past 35 years. The youth already are staying in school or attending TAFE or university.
And the ratio of the youth unemployment rate to the total unemployment rate did rise during the GFC - as often happens during economic downturns - but it is now back around where it was 10 years ago.
So don't be fooled into thinking kicking youth off the dole is about improving youth unemployment - that will only be improved if overall unemployment improves. It was just a measure to save $1.7 billion and hit a cohort of voters who the Liberal Party does not need to give a stuff about, and which will play well on talkback radio.
And in the end, if there is an audience for this Budget perhaps it is only elderly people who listened to right-wing talkback radio. Changes to the pension won't come into effect until after the election (leaving plenty of time to be adjusted or smoothed over with other payments), changes to DSP affect only those under 35, and the major cuts target those with young families rather than ones who had kids decades ago.
And as a bonus there is pretty much a complete lack of any concern about climate change.
I can hear talkback loving it already.
Greg Jericho writes weekly for The Drum. He tweets at @GrogsGamut. View his full profile here.
Topics: government-and-politics, business-economics-and-finance, budget
First posted
Comments (175)
Comments for this story are closed.
Zing:
14 May 2014 12:11:49pm
Cruelty is a matter of perspective. Consider the following:
1. A responsible budget that cuts benefits;
2. A generous budget that results in a sovereign debt crisis.
Which is crueller? Responsible selfishness or self-destructive generosity?
Alert moderator
johnb78:
14 May 2014 12:28:29pm
Zing: there is no prospect of a sovereign debt crisis. None. Zip. Nada. Australia's sovereign debt is between 1/3 and 1/4 the level of every other major developed economy. We could run enormous deficits for 20 years and still not have a debt crisis.
Alert moderator
Gary:
14 May 2014 12:43:59pm
And the debt is held in a currency that the government controls and can print any time they want to. There never will be a sovereign debt crisis. Japans debt is over 200% GDP - still no problem getting financing.
Alert moderator
casewithscience:
14 May 2014 1:40:38pm
Hypothetically, that is true. The reality is a bit different. While you can print more money, it becomes less likely that foreign lenders will accept it (except with higher interest rates to account for the inflation). Australia borrows much of its money from overseas, while Japan borrows most of its money from its own citizens. Accordingly, Japan doesn't get the interest rate spikes that Australia would have to endure if it had a higher government debt. This reality, more than actual economic management, is why Australia has a lower borrowing to GDP ratio than countries with actual wealth.
Alert moderator
a:
14 May 2014 2:15:43pm
"While you can print more money", not any more.... we just sold the mint to the US Banksters. If the government wants to print money it will have to buy it off a foreign company now, it won't be owned by the taxpayers anymore, thanks abbotts voters.
Alert moderator
big joe:
14 May 2014 5:00:57pm
a. So we are selling the mint, so what. A mint either prints or mints money, the government buys stuff made by private companies all the time so what's the big deal. If it saves money I'm all in favour of it.
Alert moderator
dotty:
15 May 2014 1:01:23am
Why would it save money? There is a blind assumption that Private Enterprise will do a job better than the government. In fact, there is no expertise in the private sector for the minting of money that they could draw on to do the job better. Even in the US, money is minted by the government.
So long as a sale to Private Enterprise contained a requirement that quality remain the same, there would be no reason anyone would buy it.
Alert moderator
a:
15 May 2014 10:06:13am
Even in the US, money is minted by the government.
No, the government buys money off the privately owned Reserve Bank. It use to have the license to print money but they sold in the 1930's. Australia sold ours in 2014, blink and you will miss it, everyone is too pissed off about scrapping medicare, scrapping unemployment, lifting the retirement age and raising the GST. All convenient red hearings to offset abbots real job, sell the mint, reduce multinational tax payments, buy expensive US war birds.
Alert moderator
a:
15 May 2014 10:02:39am
Big Joe, You sound like Joe Hockey. How will selling the money manufacturing plant save money? It will always costs money to produce notes and coins.
The only difference now is that the Au gov has to buy that money of a foreigner. They are selling the rights to ownership of all our money. We don't own the money, we don't own the notes or coins, they are owned by the manufacture...the government. Now they will be owned by foreign companies.
What is the point of a sovereign nation if we can't print our own money or prohibit foreign governments buying up Australian political parties with obscene political donations? We are just another state of the US once our political parties and mint have been bought out.
Alert moderator
chalkie:
14 May 2014 4:02:27pm
Aus also has a lower savings to GDP ration because:
1. our huge immigration fuelled population growth means we always needs lots of money to build infrastructure now for new population
2. our lousy performance of business: we have mediocre business leaders who routinely cash their chips to foreign corporations as soon as they can. Where are the Aus owned multinationals? None. Where is the Australian revenue from the exploitation of our minerals?
Dud social policy and dud corporate sector are to blame.
Alert moderator
AE:
14 May 2014 6:59:41pm
BHP for one is Aus owned.
Alert moderator
Pilbycrow:
14 May 2014 10:46:19pm
Bollocks AE
BHPBilliton is 76% foreign owned
Alert moderator
perplexed:
14 May 2014 10:54:03pm
No its not AE.
Ever heard of Billiton?
You know, the second part to the corporate name - BHP Billiton?
Alert moderator
PaulT:
15 May 2014 12:10:41am
wrong BHP is not Australian owned.
The company your referring to is BHP Billiton - which is joint listed on the ASX and stock exchange in London.
40% of its scrip is listed in the UK and just under 40% of its Australian listed scrip is held by foreign institutions.
The company is 63% foreign owned
BHP Billiton has a HQ in Melbourne but many of its board meetings are held in London (where it raises most of its finance and home to the metal exchange where it sells most of its commodities) and Hong Kong - where it also has a"headquarters". That's not to mention the trusts which hold much of its stock which are registered in the Cayman Islands Hong Kong London, the US Virgin Islands and Jersey.
BHP Billiton hasn't been an Australian company since 2002 and hasn't had an Australian CEO in 19 years. In fact its just another foreign owned corporation that flits between jurisdictions to avoid paying tax.
Alert moderator
a:
15 May 2014 10:08:09am
AE, You sure, how much of it? If a group of foreign capitalist bought in a few different trusts, the whole of BHP or any corporation on the stocky is up for sale to the highest bidder. Who are the major shareholders of Australias big 4 banks? The same group of us investors.
Alert moderator
AE:
14 May 2014 7:36:16pm
There's just one slight problem. Our exchange rate is likely to plummet, same as every other country that has done so. And because Australia doesn't pay it's way, needing constant borrowings from overseas, it wouldn't take long for inflation to go through the roof due to the weakened exchange rate. Have you considered that? And yes, I'm aware that inflation in money-printing America is tame, but sooner or later you pay the price. Humankind has been searching since time immemorial for that elusive free lunch, and it doesn't exist.
Alert moderator
Schuey:
14 May 2014 9:07:22pm
Gary, debt at 80% of GDP is considered dangerous and debt of 100 of GDP is a real emergency if you are small and rely so much on foreign funding like us.
Citing Japan at 200% of GDP is fallacious as they have huge citizen savings to draw from. There is zero chamce the market would tolerate aussie debt at 200% if GDP, i suspect you know that though.
Alert moderator
Styvo51:
15 May 2014 9:22:10am
And ours is under 20%, actually closer to 10% last time I looked...so, no debt crisis then?
Alert moderator
Zing:
14 May 2014 1:31:32pm
A sovereign debt crisis would occur if Australia can't pay it's debts back. Why would the debt levels of other countries change the severity of that situation?
Alert moderator
lazarus:
14 May 2014 2:04:54pm
All you have to do is print more money like the US is doing or have a period of high inflation and the debt is not a problem, even for countries like Japan with a 200% debt ratio.
The PIIG's are still being financed by banks, your argument is hot air as banks don't want to lose their money. At worst the Government pays a higher interest rate for their debt.
At the moment Australia could make money buy selling Government debt because of the interest rate on their borrowings.
Alert moderator
Zing:
14 May 2014 2:33:39pm
If economic trouble could be solved merely by printing more money, it would be a better world.
The global economy is currently being run like the Enron corporation. Lots of reassurances. Lots of potential. Everyone is certain that the debt will be payed off "tomorrow", if only they can have a little more time to work things out.
And like Enron, it will end the moment the lenders stop smiling and start asking for their money back.
Alert moderator
perplexed:
14 May 2014 10:56:23pm
Zonk, best tell that to the US Fed.
They seem to be in dire need of your economic expertise.
After all, they've been printing money by the wheelbarrow load since the non-existent GFC.
What would those muppets know eh?
Alert moderator
Form Guide:
14 May 2014 2:09:50pm
Zing, there is not a single economist that agrees there was a debt crisis. A structural imbalance between income and expenditure can be dealt with in many ways. Australia is not a hot dog stand. Some compassion shown in protecting the most vulnerable may have saved them the next election.
Alert moderator
dotty:
15 May 2014 1:10:24am
Australian deficits are low compared with its wealth and the economic finance community - which doesn't need to rely on the pronouncements of Mssrs Hockey and Abbott - are pretty sanguine about its ability to repay that debt.
The US had a sovereign wealth crisis not because it has a large deficit, per se, but because the Republicans were refusing to agreed to pay the debt back. That's only an issue because of a rather silly law they have which requires congressional approval once repayment of existing debt reaches a certain amount.
Alert moderator
TC:
14 May 2014 1:41:29pm
All of those other countries that we love to compare ourselves to all started their debt somewhere and guess what? The governments never wanted to make the tough decisions to bring their debt under control so it just kept ballooning for future generations to repay. Do we really want to walk that road? Our debt, which is 28% of GDP was wracked up in just SIX years. We either work to contain and reverse it and consider carefully how taxpayer dollars are allocated or in 20 years apologise to the future generations who have to pay a lot of interest as well as the principle because the people of today were weak minded and selfish.
Alert moderator
Just 6 :
14 May 2014 2:43:23pm
6 years?
What about all the cash and tax cuts the Howard/Costello gov used to pull out of Santas sack come an election?
Amazing whats so quickly forgotten...
Alert moderator
amphetimine annie:
14 May 2014 3:15:47pm
Wasn't that released into the economy, so that millions of workers could benefit?
What's the point of putting too much into the public sector, it just gets gobbled up in admin fees?
Alert moderator
RichardJ:
14 May 2014 7:32:29pm
Recession economics are different (they are failures in aggregate demand). It doesn't matter what the money is spent on, just that - on a temporary basis - it is spent. Of course, it makes sense to spend it on useful things, but Keynes himself gave an example in the Great Depression of Treasury burying cash in glass jars all over the country. People going to dig it up would generate economic activity and the ship would begin to right itself.
Alert moderator
TC:
14 May 2014 6:25:44pm
The Howard Government left a surplus and NO debt. Sorry if that fact is unbearable to you. The ALP got to start government not having to make ANY tough decisions regarding the budget as result. Australia was a in a good position to withstand the GFC as we were not already mired in debt to begin with. Now, we are in a perilous position the next time there is serious downturn in the world economy.
Alert moderator
perplexed:
14 May 2014 11:08:23pm
Howard left a structural deficit.
Deficit is what the problem is. Not debt. Debt you can pay off if you earn more than you spend over the long term. Deficit is where you have less revenue than expenses over the long term.
Structural deficit is where you cut taxes to the point that they have no hope of generating enough revenue to pay for largess and pork barrelling.
Certainly doesn't help when the sh*t hits the fan with sharp downturns in revenue while expenses go up - under circumstances like a GFC for example, which have lagging effects that last for years.
But that's not on the song page, so lets just forget about it eh?
Alert moderator
dotty:
15 May 2014 1:22:42am
The Howard Government has been criticise4d by the IMF for being one of the 2 most profligate speanders int he history of the nation:http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/hey-big-spender-howard-the-king-of-the-loose-purse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html
Although he did generate a surplus (and some may argue that Keating did the dirty work that put him in a position to be able tot do so) he then proceeded to spend it not in the interests of the nation as a whole but on pork-barrel policies designed to get the party re-elected. Certainly, looking back on the Howard years, can you point to significant infrastructure of policies that left the country in a better state than when he arrived? I can only remember a society that was more bitterly divided than at any time before, deep cuts to universities and science, attacks on the unemployed, cancelling of the trans-Australia passenger train, interference in the polices of the ACT and NT, the outrageous lies of the Children Overboard saga with no apologies when the lies were revealed, the beginnings of the vilification of migrants and indigenous people - no nation-building legacy that I can think of.
Alert moderator
GraemeF:
14 May 2014 3:41:33pm
You completely and dishonestly leave out the GFC. Labor's response to the GFC did increase debt but it saved the economy. We had an economy that went to the best in the OECD with a growth of 14% when many others with similar mining interests and balance sheets went down hill.
How can you complain about Labor making our economy the best in the world with any honesty?
Alert moderator
TC:
14 May 2014 6:22:37pm
Under Labor unemployment was rising or do you conveniently forget that? It went from 4.8% in 2007 to Treasury predicting a rate of 6.25% by June 2014 (using the ALP policies as the basis). Our growth rate was also below trend for the past 5 years. We also have ballooning debt, all from just six years of ALP rule. If Labor was still inpower and spending as they were for the past six, in another 6 years we would be 600B in debt or 52% of GDP. The only way they *pretended* they would reach a surplus by 2017/18 was by making outrageously optimistic claims for future revenue. They were economic vandals throwing your money as a taxpayer away wantonly. Now, there is a reckoning, or we can just slide down the debt plughole and leave it to our children and grandchildren to fix.
Alert moderator
AJB:
14 May 2014 6:49:10pm
Again one of the liberal trolletariiet forgetting about the GFC. The slight increase in unemployment in Australia was nothing compared to the rest of the world. The problem with deficit was not spending but revenue. I think you will find PEFO estimates (unbiased) will be significantly closer than Hockey's MYEFO.
Alert moderator
PeterT:
14 May 2014 10:48:50pm
You're just playing the political game. It's too easy to jump on the party bandwagon and blame, blame, blame till the cows come home. And hey, if that makes you sleep at night, then good for you. But your opinions are so completely biased that no dispassionate objective observer can take what you are saying seriously.
Clearly the economic problems of Australia are in no way isolated to Australia. They are connected to the world as well as the structures the world has created to bring societal order. And the reality is that order is stuffed. It is crumbling. Politics is corrupt-ridden and statesman are completely untrustworthy. The foundation of our government, like most modern democracies, is based on lying and dishonesty. An economy based on this foundation is headed for collapse. Whether it happens immediately and cataclysmically (which I doubt, but who knows), or slow and painfully, it is sure to happen.
You need to take a step back and judge each thing on its merit. Labor possessed the same flaws that this government possesses. A different ideology, and different ways of exhibiting complete ineptitude for tackling the problems of our age, but no less impotent.
Alert moderator
dotty:
15 May 2014 1:42:38am
We learned in Economics 101 that 5% unemployment was considered to be a good level for keeping the economy ticking - enough people looking for work to give employers a choice and enough jobs out there for people to be able to find work. 6.2% is still a figure for a strong economy. You just need to look over at Europe - Spain 22% with 33% youth unemployment, France 10% with 22% youth. Germany, the saviour of the Eurozone, had an unemployment rate in 2011 of just above 5%, 10.5% youth unemployment.
With a little perspective, rather than taking the self-interested comments of Mssrs Abbott and Hockey at face value, one has a better picture of the strength of the Australian economy under the Labor government.
And you reject the Labor estimates that their budget would be balanced by 2016/7 but you accept the coalition estimate of a 600B blowout in 6 years? Why is that? Since the Coalition have already repealed a number of Labor's revenue-making policies, their figures are suspect.
A final point - this Budget brings down the "deficit" by 1.7% by 2017. Peter Costello cut spending by 3.1% over 3 years during his time as Treasurer and Paul Keating by 3.5% during his. I say that 1.7% isn't a convincing response to a "Fiscal Crisis". Perhaps that's because there isn't in fact a fiscal crisis, but the Government wishes the electorate to believe there is so they can embark on a program unacceptable social engineering.
Alert moderator
David:
14 May 2014 6:53:09pm
Time to end the lies about the stimulus package saving us from the GFC, it was the savings of the previous Govt that saved us from the GFC, whilst we might have need to go into some debt to support stimulus, it wouldn't be an issue if the stimulus created real, productive and sustainable jobs, not creating a spending debarcle that killed 4 and burned down scores of house, whilst the ALP will say it was $2.8B it as closer to $3.8B when you add the money to remediate the botched houses and do the inspections, is that really what we shoudl be spending borrowed money on?
Alert moderator
RichardJ:
14 May 2014 7:30:05pm
Increased debt at the lowest possible interest rates!! It's a manageable problem.
Alert moderator
Tazer:
15 May 2014 5:55:00am
Thanks to the Howard government's reforms to the banking sector and efforts to pay off the previous Labor government's debt and build a surplus. This surplus was the only reason ALP had the leverage to respond.
Alert moderator
RichardJ:
14 May 2014 7:29:08pm
TC sorry but you just have no idea and you are misrepresenting the situation. The GFC caused problems in a number of ways. One was major collapses of banks and related entities; to overcome this, countries nationalised their debts in various ways. This had nothing to do with their lack of 'tough decisions' and everything to do with trying to avoid massive unemployment. For example, Spain, Italy and Portugal did not have debt or spending problems leading into the GFC (only Greece did and it's a different case).
The debt impact on these countries arose from the GFC collapses and then, in the euro and the UK areas in particular, from inappropriate austerity programs that reduced economic activity and hence (a) drove up government expenditure and (b) reduced government income.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with future generations paying for the things we leave them by the way. It's an emotional argument to say otherwise and not very sensible. Does each generation tear up the roads it built?
Alert moderator
Mary2:
14 May 2014 12:36:24pm
Why should the only options be the extremes you suggest?
It is quite possible to have a 'responsible' budget which doesn't contribute to increased poverty and homelessness for people with disabilities.
Alert moderator
Dapsta:
14 May 2014 1:24:48pm
The answer is no.
You're trying to draft a budget for 22+ million people which apparently provides a safety net, pays the middle class to take care of their kids, keeps people in jobs, whilst not putting too much of inpost on business or high income earners who pay the majority of tax, in addition to that keeping the country's borders safe, defense, education, health, pensioners, the public sector, and the billions of little social welfare programs.
Sorry but the government that can make a perfect budget that won't piss of some demographic will definitely get my vote. In the mean time I like to live in the real world with reasonable expectations.
EVERYONE has their hand out and then freaks out when money isn't thrown at their little corner.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
14 May 2014 2:35:28pm
Dapsta you say "EVERYONE has their hand out and then freaks out when money isn't thrown at their little corner"
And wisely (for themselves) the LNP has made sure that the hand that feeds them is fed in return.
Hense we see the winners of the budget being Mining (ie. massively wealth multinational corporations involved in mining) and Defense (ie. massively wealthy multinational corporations involved in the USA military industrial complex that sells our military stuff like flash fighter jets).
The losers... are those that don't vote for the LNP and most importantly don't make "Political Donations" to the LNP.
Alert moderator
RichardJ:
14 May 2014 7:35:11pm
I don't see it that way. I see, instead, a definite ideological framework that the government is pursuing under cover of its fictions about the economy.
Alert moderator
Lee:
14 May 2014 12:37:36pm
The problem is there is not a single professional independent economist worth their salt who believes we have a sovereign debt crisis..... actually look at the figures.
Not all debt is wrong - how many people buy their houses, cars without debt? How many businesses NEVER use debt? It doesn't happen.
This is a manufactured "crisis" with the sole purpose of pushing through a political agenda.
Alert moderator
TC:
14 May 2014 1:44:41pm
No. When you have a mortgage you have an asset behind it. Australia has spent $300B (at least) more than we have received in revenue in just 6 years with no assets to show for it (unless you count some pink batts and a few school halls as asets) If the government spent bullions of dollars on specific infrastructure projects that the country needs going forward, then it is acceptable to ask for future generations of taxpayers to help pay for it. The lack of economic understanding displayed by those on the Left is frightening.
Alert moderator
Old Timer:
14 May 2014 2:04:21pm
"When you have a mortgage you have an asset behind it."
Sorry TC, I must have missed the point where Australia as a whole, with all its natural resources, and all its readily available infrastructure required to run a modern economy, was excised from the status of being an "asset". Did it happen at the same time we were excised from the immigration program?
Alert moderator
Zing:
14 May 2014 3:34:02pm
Old Timer. While you understand the concept of mortgaging the country, you don't seem to grasp the gravity of it.
The simplest translation of asset is "something that can be sold for revenue in the event of liquidation".
We can't just sell the country if the budget goes belly up. Nor can we sell the roads, pink batts or unnecessary classrooms purchased with previous budgets. If you can't sell something when things get tough, it's not an asset - it's a liability.
Alert moderator
Dove:
14 May 2014 4:09:25pm
Perhaps an asset is just a resource. It could be used to raise revenue, it could be used for other purposes and at other times. Its opposite is not a liability. Its opposite is no resource at all. Just because your asset can't be sold doesn't mmake it a liability. The two aren't related.
Alert moderator
DenM:
14 May 2014 4:42:45pm
Why not? Governments (particularly Libs) have been doign it already for years.
Alert moderator
Old Timer:
14 May 2014 6:29:16pm
Ahh, Zing, but you selectively chose not to mention resources, like iron ore and coal. Which is what we can sell, along with Medicare, Australia post, the Mint, and anything else that isn't nailed down. Which is what the Lieberals do well, apart from telling whopping big lies, that is.
I'm afraid your 'simplest translation' is what fits you to a "Z".
Alert moderator
Zing:
14 May 2014 7:39:44pm
Whatever, Old Timer.
You're trying to tell us that it's fine to have massive debt, because we can sell public assets if the budget situation goes sour. In the next breath, you condemn the liberals for.....selling public assets. Nice.
Alert moderator
Mossman Mal:
15 May 2014 12:52:32am
zing typical that you are so short sighted every time you sell public asset that have been run into rthe ground by both labour and liberal goverments there fore shifting the burden of cost back to the people that use said assets along with a higher tax burden that is needed as you have got rid of every thing that makes revenue. so that the liberal mates can make profit from the poor and needy by charging more for less service yes this is what the liberals are really good at put money in the pockets of thier mates like gina and co
Alert moderator
lazarus:
14 May 2014 2:06:43pm
Must be why the Libs/Nats ran 31 continuous deficits between 1949 & 1972 and 1975 -1983
Alert moderator
MDG:
14 May 2014 6:12:58pm
The 'asset' in this case is an economy unscarred by the damage and dislocation of recession and which is capable of bearing the debt.
It's less like a mortgage than it is a HECS debt. A person goes to university to get a degree and will incur a debt along the way. But having a degree increases your future earning potential so much that you can not only pay off that debt but go on to accumulate wealth you otherwise wouldn't have been able to.
When you consider that we were going into debt anyway courtesy of the revenue losses shown in the graphs above, the choice was between being in debt but with good employment and at least marginal economic growth or being in debt and risking a recession. That's a no-brainer.
Alert moderator
pka:
14 May 2014 12:51:00pm
I take it you didn't actually read the article where its noted that the recent deficits were caused by a drop in revenue due to the GFC? To fix that by attacking the most at risk in our society is cruel as well as unnecessary, as the global economy is starting to improve again.
We already tax and spend far less than most other developed nations, and our health and social services had no fat to give. What was cut was bone and our national shall bleed for it.
If Hockey needed to balance the budget closing many of the tax loopholes would of been much more effective, and stopping people in higher tax brackets from using cheaper pension taxation rates and Trusts as a means of avoiding tax.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
14 May 2014 12:56:58pm
A generous budget that takes from the poorest, families, the elderly, the most vulnerable and those trying to better themselves (uni students) and gives the money to insanely wealthy multinational mining companies and the USA military industrial complex (oh I love a great new fighter plane) and the big pharma companies (who will happily benefit from our generous research fund)?
Perspective is everything isn't it zing.
ps. my clients won't be paying much in the way of a "deficit tax/levy" thanks to the provisions of Div7a of the ITA which allows for the provision of loans (instead of income) that can be paid back over time and don't commence in reality for a year or two..... nor will folks like Gina or Clive.... but then that was the plan all along.....
Alert moderator
Sue:
14 May 2014 1:50:36pm
Interesting view. Yes some groups are losing handouts but have you considered that these handouts were overly generous. Child care payments (which I think have gone unchanged) are not means tested. Why on earth not? A person on $500,000 can surely pay their own.
Alert moderator
Dame Sark:
14 May 2014 5:36:22pm
Sue, are you talking about the child care rebates? If so they are means tested, Gillard govt brought this in capped at $150 000 per year. previously under Howard they were, meaning anyone could claim 50% of their child card regardless of what they earn.
Alert moderator
Dazza:
14 May 2014 5:47:55pm
"..are not means tested."
"A person on $500,000 can surely pay their own."
Then you've got the farcical Treasurer, when he was in opposition, saying that Labor was all for higher taxes when the Private Health Insurance Offset was finally going to be income tested after Howard's handouts?
Old Hopeless Hockey is really living up to his name!!
Alert moderator
me:
14 May 2014 12:59:48pm
You say that like it's an either/or thing. It isn't. Most accept that the current path of Government spending needs to be reined in. Where the cruelty lies is expecting those least able to do so to bear most of the impost. There are plenty of areas that could have saved money and been better targeted:
1. Turn the carbon tax into an emissions trading scheme - it hits only the big polluters, and encourages investment in alternatives that will benefit us all in the longer term.
2. Get rid of negative gearing - It pushes up property prices because of demand for investment property by the wealthy - meaning that those who could otherwise own their own home are forced to rent.
3. Fix the Minerals Resource rent tax to get rid of the loopholes so that it actually raises some revenue. If some of the big miners then go oversea, well then our minerals will still be her when they come back. Otherwise, most of the financial benefit of our minerals goes straight to China and Switzerland, with us left holding the environmental legacy with nothing to show for it.
4. Reduce the Health insurance rebate. This does nothing to help families because the health funds simply inflated their rates to suit and pocketed the difference.
5. Ditch the PPL. It's targeted exactly backwards.
6. Fix the tax rorts that are available only to the wealthiest of superannuants.
7. Reverse the Howard Government's "sandwich and a milkshake" tax cuts for the wealthy. We don't have a mining boom anymore.
Above all, the current government knew exactly what the state of the Government's finances was before the election. In spite of that they made promises they had no intention of keeping so they could get themselves over the line, then even proceeded to double the deficit once they got in. Clearly they don't even believe their own words when they talk about a budget emergency.
Alert moderator
Mongo:
14 May 2014 1:50:42pm
The only disagreement I'd have is at #2- don't get rid of negative gearing, phase it out on existing property and only allow it on new property for 10 years. At least then the investors will help fuel the construction industry.
Oh, and #8- eliminate the 'too big to fail' guarantee for the major banks so that they don't keep jacking the non-government debt levels by borrowing overseas. Or we could impose a super-profits tax, and actually get something BACK for that guarantee...
Alert moderator
darthseditious:
14 May 2014 3:10:45pm
I agree with reducing the health insurance rebate. I wonder how much premiums would have risen if it didn't exist. Not much if natural competition was allowed to work.
Alert moderator
Fred the Big Cat:
14 May 2014 5:22:08pm
Why have private health insurance at all when an expanded Medicare funded by an increase in the Medicare Levy to a total cost level would be more cost effective to the country than the current public/private mix. All the current system does is shift some of the costs away from the taxation system to direct payments by individuals and families to the less efficient private health insurance system. The cost is lower to the government but higher overall to the country.
The only thing that private health insurance should cover is some aspects of ancillary health care/items that is approved on the basis of efficacy (no acupuncture, chiropractors, aroma therapists or other snake oil professions), and for higher grade hotel services in a private hospital.
Alert moderator
Boxhead:
14 May 2014 1:02:41pm
Ah, the good old false dichotomy. Few deny that changes to our spending and taxing habits were required. The idea that the changes outlined in this budget are "equally shared pain" though is a farce that we were softened up to accept via the commission of audit and pre budget framing.
Along with unneccesary expenses (8bn to treasury, a bunch of toy planes etc..) There were plenty of savings measures left on the table, some of which did not require the level of pain the Australian public are being asked to swallow.
Alert moderator
lilly:
14 May 2014 1:11:59pm
According to the above graph, the government's total revenue for 2013-2014 will be about $360billion. I read the other day that the interest we pay on the existing debt is about $26billion (about 6.5% interest on a $400billion in debt which sounds about right). This interest bill equates to 7% of the government's total earnings. It's the equivalent of a person on $100k per annum having a loan of about $100K. There isn't a bank out there that would consider such a loan risky - most would be begging you to borrow more. Furthermore, government revenue has been increasing naturally as the economy has been picking up (as shown by the graphs).
If they're worried about revenue into the future, wouldn't it be better to increase levels of income tax (perhaps in the top brackets - take back Costello's tax cuts which caused part of the revenue problem in the first place)? This will be less painful then hitting low income earners (the one's who can't afford it) with welfare cuts. Sure, they'd be breaking a promise about lower taxes but it would be only one promise. Based upon the Liberal's pre-election rheotric, I think this budget breaks 10 or 15 promises.
I also think that Keating's idea of a sort of insurance scheme to fund those baby boomers who will be living to 90-100 years old is worth thinking about.
I'd also consider introducing incentives to the legion of baby boomers who are retiring to start going to the gym on a regular basis. People who exercise are far less likely to have the chronic health problems that will cost the nation so much into the future. It will also improve their quality of life and keep them out of old age homes for longer - this has to be a good thing.
Alert moderator
TC:
14 May 2014 2:05:15pm
No, banks do care about you borrowing $100,000 on unsecured assets. You could be a gambler or a cocaine addict for all they know so they want to protect their money. I earn $80,000 and was only allowed to borrow $12,000 unsecured. If you borrowed $100,000 on 9.99% you have to find $10,000 a year just to pay the interest. This might be worthwhile if you are spending it on something worthwhile, like part-time business or an asset that you expect will increase in value quite significantly overtime. But if you are spending it just on your 'lifestyle' it is a sign you are over leveraged and need to cut back on your spending. This is the type economics Year 9 students should be getting taught. Australia's debt has been whittled away on nothing. This is a problem and must be addressed.
Alert moderator
lilly:
14 May 2014 2:57:02pm
You are comparing chalk and cheese.
The Australian Government's means of getting credit is very different to your own. Furthermore, the government doesn't pay an interest rate of 9.99%. Among other things, they sell Australian Government Bonds on the open market which currently yield about 3% for a 3 year maturity. This is less than a third of what you're paying for an unsecured loan. Even the Greek government (who's situation is extremely different to our own) recently sold of 3 billion euros of 5 year notes at a yield of 4.95 percent and the market lapped them up (oversubscribed by almost seven times).
There is no soverign debt crisis. The only people who think there is are the Liberals who's ideas about debt appear to be highly misconceived.
The RBA's advice on this matter was that the Government should look at increasing it's revenue in the near to medium term to account for it's increased expenditures. It also said that drastic action was neither necessary or wise as it could make an economy which is still adjusting to the post-mining boom era start to slow which in turn would definitely cause a drop in revenue.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the economy thanks to Mr Hockey's budget. Hitting a large percentage of the population with increased taxes and reduced incomes is bound to have an affect on spending.
Alert moderator
damon:
14 May 2014 3:30:39pm
You are not comparing chalk and cheese at all. If I borrow money, I have to pay interest on the debt. If a country borrows money, it also pays interest on the debt. It may be able to string out the repayments far longer than I can, but if it can't meet the interest payments, eventually it will go broke. Greece, Spain, etc, are all bankrupt, or nearly bankrupt. The only difference is - the bankers can't come and take away the country.
Alert moderator
lilly:
14 May 2014 4:33:22pm
And when you are getting $360billion in tax revenue each year, paying an interest bill of $26billion is not very difficult. On the other hand, by causing the economy to slow or go into reverse, the government can reduce its revenue by $20billion or more quite easily.
Alert moderator
TC:
14 May 2014 6:46:19pm
Its 26 billion you don't have to spend on infrastructure or anything else.
Alert moderator
TC:
14 May 2014 6:45:41pm
And Greece has a weathy benefactor - Germany. Well Germany was wealthy, now not so much after having to bail out Greece. Australia doesn't have anyone to bail us out. It seems though that the Left wants us to march down that European road - big government, inefficient bureacracies, massive subsidies for failing energy sources, high taxes (well maybe not high taxes, just add to the countries credit card, that should be fine...) yay! utopia here we come!!
Alert moderator
fed up senior:
14 May 2014 4:08:28pm
There is nothing misconceived about the Liberals concept of debt. It is perfect for creating the pseudo crisis that enables them to get away with their extreme right wing agenda. The creation of a permanent underclass who don,t live too long because there are no medical services available. Back to the 1850's when the rich were rich and the poor knew their place
Alert moderator
damon:
14 May 2014 2:09:17pm
While your mathematics may be correct, I suggest if you went to the bank, earning 100k with 100k in debt, and announced that you intended to borrow a further 100k every year for a further 4 years, the bank manager might not be quite as sanguine about your prospects for repayment
Alert moderator
Bogan:
14 May 2014 1:15:48pm
3. A budget that properly taxes mining companies to recover decades of tax revenue spent on supporting exploration and building infrastructure.
Hello
Alert moderator
Gary:
14 May 2014 1:47:32pm
Dumping the mining tax is the one promise they will keep. Millions of dollars of donations has it's price - unfortunately we the public will be paying it.
Alert moderator
LeftRightOut:
14 May 2014 1:19:10pm
Yes Zing cruelty is a matter of perspective.
If jobs exist so that they can introduce work for the dole, why not just give them a job? Or is it much easier to prop up a few businesses while giving the 'worthless' youth a clip across the back of the head.
This is just another example of a government that thinks it can apply a bandaid to a chainsaw wound, while at the same time making the slashing victim bear the cost of the first aid attendant.
P.S. Why is it responsible to cut benefits? Wouldn't it be more prudent to raise revenues from profitable sources (mining for example) or would that be cruel to the wealthy?
Alert moderator
Politically Incorrect:
14 May 2014 2:05:13pm
Neither because neither is true: Abbott and Hockey were just full of lies the whole time. Utterly incapable of being honest.
The result of this budget will be more people out on the streets, particuarly young people and as a result you will see riots like we did in England a few years ago (and riots are very expensive to clean up) and quite frankly many of us will be placing the blame on the Government.
This is not a responsible budget, this is a cut to the bone austerity drive just like Kevin Rudd predicted.
If Pope Francis was serious about helping the poor being a priority for all Catohlics, the first thing he should do is move to excommunicate the PM & Tresurer as nobody in the history of this country has ever done more to hurt the poor than Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey... ever!
Alert moderator
hand out to the rich:
14 May 2014 2:17:53pm
Qualifying for government handouts on a hundred thousand a year is hardly ending the age of entitlement.
Abbott was all bluff. All bark no bite. He squibbed the hard decision to cut middle class welfare.
Join the greens and ALP Tony. They too believe in handouts to the rich.
Alert moderator
skidmarx:
14 May 2014 2:47:51pm
No debt crisis when supporting Lockheed corporate welfare, purchasing lemon aircraft. Isn't Lockheed corporate welfare American taxpayers responsibility?
Alert moderator
Jay Somasundaram:
14 May 2014 3:11:49pm
What we should demand from government is that they develop and report on a genuine progress indicator, one that balances economic, social and environmental well-being.
Let them set targets, and we can judge them on their performance. If tough love works, let them prove it. Right now it's as if the parents are eating ice cream, and giving the children dog food.
Alert moderator
bob:
14 May 2014 3:38:39pm
How about a budget that cuts some benifits and tax deductions so that the budget comes back to surplus in 5 years rather than a budget that slams on the brakes, feeds kiddies buttered toast for dinner and lead to a surplus in 3 years. When will governments of any color learn the meaning of "steady as she goes".
Alert moderator
John51:
14 May 2014 4:20:49pm
Zing, can you not help repeating Abbott's lies. Sovereign debt crises. There is none. This is just another one of Abbott and Hockey's big fat lies. I will tell you this if Australia has a sovereign debt crises than the world is doomed.
With that belief I have to wonder if you are one of the people in Peter Lewis's article that he surveyed who thought that Australia had a bigger debt level than other comparable developed countries. There were 22% who said we had a higher debt than all other developed countries. Another 20% even said we had the same level of debt. And there were 13% honest enough to say they did not know.
THe thing is Zing, that makes up 55% of people who did not have a clue about the level of our debt compared to other developed countries. We in fact have one of the lowest levels of debt by far when compared to the other developed countries.
So if we have a sovereign debt problem than the rest of the world are way beyond having a soverign debt problem. The United States, The United Kindgom and even Germany must be in some other level of debt way above that called a soverign risk. I wonder if they have worked that out yet.
Alert moderator
rockpicker:
14 May 2014 6:30:04pm
There is a very important word missing here Zing...fairness, that is where the cruelty is. It is a budget for tax dodging businesses.
Alert moderator
geo:
14 May 2014 6:59:06pm
Money is created by debt. For every dollar lent out, more than a dollar must be repayed.
Alert moderator
AE:
14 May 2014 7:08:10pm
Exactly. It makes me laugh how these people who say "throw the cash around" act as if spending huge volumes of other peoples' money is some kind of virtue, dressing up their selfishness as "compassion".
So many people in this country want TAB* to pay more tax, but don't dare tax me. So many people say that TAB's payment from government is wasteful, but my payment is virtuous, I tell you.
Here is the thing though - TAB might feel that way about you. TAB might not welcome his taxes being raised or benefits being cut. So if it's not TAB's job, or my job, or your job, to wear some pain, then whose job is it?
*TAB = That Other Bloke
Alert moderator
perplexed:
14 May 2014 10:49:33pm
Zonk, you missed one out...
3. A hit those who are least able to adjust easily in their discretionary spending budget.
One that will see a reduction in that spend, which will reduce discretionary retail sales and housing. Coincidentally, those areas that the RBA have been saying were suffering under the 2 speed economy and were hoping would improve and replace the mining investment boom as that comes off the boil over the next year.
Note Zonk, that I referred to the mining boom as an investment boom. Not much has been dug up from this boom. It is construction. Once the construction stops, then things get dug up. It doesn't cost much to dig the gear up with all the flash stuff they built. but a job lot of profit.
Responsible budgets make sure you don't tap into that eh.
Responsible budgets slug a pensioner an additional 7 bucks to see a doctor or get a blood test. 7 bucks on top of the 78 they shell out for a non-bulk billing GP. The 40 gap is not a co-contribution already is it - nope, it's a consumer choice. Not to mention all the tax and medicare levies they paid when in the workforce.
Nope. Responsible budgets say thanks for getting the nation to the advance state it is. Now pay your way some more you old bludger.
Alert moderator
Act Rationally:
14 May 2014 12:28:28pm
A budget that deserves some credit, although they could have gone further and removed other entities from the public teat (negative gearing and diesel tax rebates).
Perhaps now some people are working out that you are responsible for you own destiny and upkeep of yourselves and your family. It is your responsibility to pursue your own ecomonic interests, not be supported by others. If that means you have to move to where economic activity gives you a better chance, so be it: your ancestors had to do the same thing.
Life is cruel - its just that we have been coddled to think otherwise. Both sides of politics have been guilty of pursuing this 'entitlement mentality' and it should be unwould - this budget is a good start, but more needs to be done.
Alert moderator
MJLC:
14 May 2014 12:48:51pm
"A budget that deserves some credit..."
credit/ n & v - 5(b) - the power to obtain goods etc. before payment (based on the trust that payment will be made)
I was of the understanding that unwarranted dishing out of credit is meant to be the underpinning of our alleged current malaise. The Age of Credit Entitlement, I regret to advise, is over AR. The people behind this budget need to live within their means and stop spending their time and wasting ours expecting an easy line of credit.
Alert moderator
Mark James:
14 May 2014 1:34:15pm
"It is your responsibility to pursue your own ecomonic interests, not be supported by others."
So you're saying that, if you're unlucky enough to lose your legs in a workplace accident, you should be expected to fund and build your own wheel-chair ramps?
Looks like Australia is moving towards it's "no such thing as society" moment.
Still, I'm sure the Tories will still expect (demand) donations and support when they need to lavish money on overseas wars, school chaplains, border security and building the infrastructure to enable their mates to ship massive profits overseas.
Alert moderator
MJLC:
14 May 2014 2:42:09pm
I'm unsurprised your comment directed at AR has ended up colliding with me Mark.
Having watched this mob for as long as I have I know full well they never stay in one (rhetorical) spot for any length of time - and unless you've got the equivalent skills a fighter pilot needs to lead a target (aiming your bullets at the place your foe will be when the bullets finally reach there) then invariably you'll find they've slipped through the net yet again and someone else will catch them.
Alert moderator
Mark James:
14 May 2014 3:19:24pm
Thanks MJLC, but I intend to do as the "adults" do and take no responsibility whatsoever for my misplaced comment, preferring instead to blame Labor's "mess" for the unusual alignment of the 'Reply' button.
Alert moderator
muzz:
14 May 2014 5:37:27pm
No what you do is lock your missiles on the target and let the computers in the missile and plane do the rest.
This using guns is typical of the Liberals because they are stuck in the fifties not using smart weapons to solve problems that require smart weapon solutions such as a smart weapon like the stimulus plan during the GFC.
Alert moderator
Gary:
14 May 2014 12:49:56pm
The blueprint for a dog-eat-dog world. Is that what the Australian people want?
Where the big corporations have free reign to use their power and wealth to screw everyone else over. How much profit did the Commonwealth bank just report?
Alert moderator
Realist:
14 May 2014 4:19:43pm
How much capital does the Commonwealth Bank have invested? So what percentage return on investment is that? And how many superannuants have benefited through their super fund owning shares in the Commonwealth Bank?
Do you have superannuation? If so you are most likely a beneficiary. But any chance to whinge should never be passed up I suppose.
Alert moderator
Mark James:
14 May 2014 7:01:29pm
Yes Gary, be extremely grateful for the small crumbs that are sometimes flicked from the table.
The born-to-rule are back in charge now, and it seems we're no longer allowed to critique the status quo without being labelled whingers or leftists or bludgers. No doubt, we'll also be damned as "un-Australian" some time soon if we fail to put in 100% batting for Abbott's "home team".
Divide and rule. As ever it was.
Alert moderator
Fed up senior:
14 May 2014 12:54:35pm
Act Rationally is talking rubbish.
I paid millions in tax for my pension and medical benefits.
So no one else is supporting me- I already paid.
Move where, surprise surprise other countries don'e like economic refugees either. Nor do I want to spend my now limited capital on estate agents and land taxes.
Alert moderator
cameco96:
14 May 2014 1:18:18pm
If you have paid millions in tax you should have more than limited capital.
Alert moderator
lazarus:
14 May 2014 2:11:31pm
$10000 py income tax, $15000 year GST, previous Sales and other taxes, easy enough to have spent $1mil in taxes on a not so high income over your lifetime and still have limited capital.
Think a bit harder
Alert moderator
cameco96:
14 May 2014 4:13:00pm
$15k in gst means you spent $165k in a year. Not so high income? What have you got back from the government along the way? Family tax benefits, child endowment? It was also multiple millions that FUS was talking about. Still does not add up to me.
Alert moderator
darthseditious:
14 May 2014 3:13:04pm
Land tax would be a more equitable way of taxation as opposed to government stamp duty. Also a more constant flow of revenue for the states. If added to quarterly rate bills, wouldn't be missed.
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
14 May 2014 1:01:08pm
Act,
You make a valid point.
Why should vastly wealthy multinational companies involved in mining pay a mining tax (now removed) or expect to see their subsidies removed (which they weren't) when you can just slog the Australians who will never vote for the party that created this budget.
Similarly the USA military industrial complex will continue to benefit from our increased defense expenditure (particularly in relation to snazzy fighter jets we will never really need or use outside of airshows).
The LNP knows exactly who funds their party via political donations and who votes for them.
Cruel? .... for sure.
But who cares as long as the LNP gets to stay in power and the MP get to keep their jobs and perks.
Alert moderator
MojoMouse:
14 May 2014 1:05:21pm
Life is indeed cruel to struggling families, the elderly, the sick, the disabled and to the unemployed young people.
Life is rather more kind to wealthy mothers, retirees with massive super tax concessions, mining billionaires, CEOs and even politicians with their nominal one year salary freeze.
Life will be kind indeed to the millionaires of the future, the only ones who will be able to afford many of the benefits of the massive medical research fund being set up.
Alert moderator
CharlieB:
14 May 2014 1:17:02pm
Actually, there is no "entitlement mentality" other than a vacuous concept created by the selfish and greedy. Life isn't cruel, its just unfair - some are lucky and some aren't. The historical Australian ideals of a fair go and mateship have evolved to a position where most of us want the disadvantaged to get our help - preferably via the tax system.
Trying to undo a long term part of Australia's culture may be good for "business" and conservative ideology but it will also create division and conflict between us and them. A return to a feudal system perhaps?
Alert moderator
LeftRightOut:
14 May 2014 1:41:51pm
"Perhaps now some people are working out that you are responsible for you own destiny and upkeep of yourselves and your family. "
When a business sacks hundreds of employees to move production overseas, or a government sacks thousands of public servants to save a few bucks this increases unemployment. According to your reasoning, people should stop being workers and become bosses to avoid being sacked. Life don't work that way. Over the past few years unemployment and underemployment has been on the increase, so telling them they need to be responsible for their own destiny is a bit unrealistic.
Alert moderator
Act Rationally:
14 May 2014 3:54:23pm
"According to your reasoning, people should stop being workers and become bosses to avoid being sacked. Life don't work that way. Over the past few years unemployment and underemployment has been on the increase, so telling them they need to be responsible for their own destiny is a bit unrealistic."
Life does work that way, and has for centuries. That attitude removes people personal responsibility to seek out opportunity and pursue economic independence.
A mentality that someone else is always responsible for your situation leads to helplessness, and inhibits the kind of thought that breeds the desire to create your own opportunities.
People have freedom, they are often just afraid to pursue what is possible under it. That mentality makes you a victim. The government is not there to give you a job, but to create the conditions that allow you to excel in developing your own economic independence.
Alert moderator
LeftRightOut:
14 May 2014 4:40:35pm
AC
Not everyone can be a boss - at least not successfully. That is life. Therefore you need some other way of earning to pay for your right to live in our society. However, not everyone can or does contribute equally. Some are more skilled in certain areas than others. Some of this comes naturally, some comes through education (another issue for another day). But the reality of life is that there are workers, there are employers, there are investors, there are welfare recipients, etc. Not all welfare recipients are reliant on government assistance for long periods but some are.
You seem to believe that everyone is capable of not only undertaking a working role, but should they find themselves unable to get a job that it is simply a matter of starting your own business. This is the height of ignorance to lifes realities and demonstrates the attitude that because one person achieved something then everybody can achieve the same. Yes people have freedom, but when you have a family to feed and/or little work and business skills, you also have the freedom to be abused, mistreated, ripped off etc.
You may wish to consider what is happening with the places that provide jobs for the disabled and what is expected to happen to those workers in the coming years with the recent decision to ensure a more equitable pay system. Please explain to them about their freedom and that it is wrong for them to expect assitance from the government or society in general.
Alert moderator
Steve_C:
14 May 2014 3:47:54pm
"Life is cruel - its just that we have been coddled to think otherwise."
No it isn't!!! Life... or whatever you want to call it - "nature", "existence"... "God"; is a construct of the human mind, developed by our ancestors to try and explain things that defied the signals their brains were receiving about cause and effect or the 'logical' outcome of what they expected.
What they found hard to wrap their heads around - as clearly as statements like the one I've quoted above from Act Rationally demonstrate how little time and science have altered that tendency to personify or humanize things that have no relation to our own interpretations of human characteristics such as cruelty or compassion; is that 'life' just "is"...
Of course, our ancient ancestors also discerned that if 'life' "just is" and it doesn't really give a jot about human emotions, activities or our existence in any cognisant way, then it was up to humans to try and make their own existence not only more assured, but maybe even bearable in the face of the truth.
No coddling was involved in the development of human co-operation. The sort of co-operation that has led us to the point where we are today. It wasn't coddling that informed those humans who've felt compelled to tend to their wounded warriors after a battle, or nurse their sick rather than to just leave them to "nature's cruelty". It was sheer logic and the understanding that survival required more than just looking after those who sent you into battle.
I dare say that Act Rationally or those of like mind, wouldn't reject the assistance of others given freely if they found themselves in the sort of distress that a constantly cruel life throws at them...
I'd even be more certain that they'd be a little bit upset if not angry, if those offering assistance declared no intention to help until they'd been paid in advance for any assistance they may provide.
Perhaps not - if the followers of "life is cruel" dictum truly believe and act on such a dictum, and they haven't been mollycoddled into believing otherwise, they would take their medicine of no medicine and thank those who leave them to suffer while they help out those who don't mind some freely offered assistance.
Alert moderator
Ann:
14 May 2014 4:48:09pm
Here we see Act Rationally argue that means testing the family home for pensions would be the best possible thing, and that old pensioners should have to move out of their homes into small accommodation immediately upon retiring. This would free up the housing market for the youth as well, win-win, glad to have talked to you, Act Rationally. I expect to hear your excellent arguments against negative gearing as simply being a "handout" to investors.
Alert moderator
Fed up senior:
14 May 2014 12:51:10pm
A budget that hits at the most vulnerable because there is either a fear or vested interest in tackling the real problems. They should start with negative gearing, family trusts and tax rate on superannuation earnings in Accumulation phase- and on stripping the cossetting from MP's at all leves.l
Alert moderator
Dove:
14 May 2014 2:22:14pm
Vote 1 Fed up senior!
Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:
14 May 2014 3:46:11pm
Vote 1/3rd Fed up senior.
sorry can't give you a full vote as negative gearing applies to every single type of business/rental activity (and as such would be pointless trying to issolate one of them), also family trust don't mitigate or reduce taxation as Personal Services Income is still directed to the individual doing the personal services and all income of a trust must be distributed to individuals who pay tax at their prevailing Income Tax rates (none can be sheltered as you can with a Pty company).
actually... I withdraw my 1/3rd vote, unless you are prepared to have you pension phase super fund earnings taxed instead of being tax free income (along with your accumulation phase income).
Alert moderator
Rocky:
14 May 2014 12:51:50pm
The real fun will come when the states have to find the extra money to make up for the reduced federal funding for schools and hospitals...
Given how badly in debt the states routinely are, this is surely just a cynical political ploy to shift deficit onto a different ledger, further adding to existing debt burden faced by the states.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out though.
Alert moderator
Gary:
14 May 2014 1:43:43pm
The objective is to pressure the states to agree to broaden the GST. A food tax - the next broken promise.
Alert moderator
Politically Incorrect:
14 May 2014 1:57:58pm
The fact that the Government is getting the harshest criticism from their OWN side (the State Liberal Governments who are generally more conservative than their Federal counterparts) is very telling.
Meanwhile apologists are complaining only the left is against this budget.
Alert moderator
Dove:
14 May 2014 2:17:33pm
Sounds credible, as does compelling states to make similar cuts in order to avoid their own debt problems
Alert moderator
jarasp:
14 May 2014 1:04:36pm
Some of this budget has merit. Will the senate support the measures? I think not, after al,l the LNP under Tony said no to everything suggested by the previous government even though many of those pieces of legislation were in the best interests of the country.
Tony Abbott lied his way into power, much more dishonest than Gillard. Exaggerating the extent of debt by borrowing more to make it look worse.He thinks all will be forgiven by the time of the next election. With the increase in the cost of living as a result of this budget, something he said he would address once in power (another lie) and the ordinary Australian doing most of the heavy lifting I don't think people will forget.
There may not be any more dancing and cigar smoking by big Joe rejoicing in his hard work bringing down a budget to hit the most vulnerable. Well done Joe you are a great Australian.
Alert moderator
TC:
14 May 2014 1:36:20pm
Maybe the 'young, poor' people will think it is better to be employed or learning a skill/trade than sitting around on the dole. Too mnay young people take the easy option because a life of welfare is available to them. Our parents sometimes had to kick our butts into action for our own good, sometimes so must the government.
Alert moderator
Polly Prissypants:
14 May 2014 2:23:41pm
What skills should they learn? What trades? Jobs for the young are reducing all the time. Gone are the days when the non-academic could leave school in Year 10 and walk into an apprenticeship or even a full time retail position since most of that is casual and unstable these days.
Even the after-school supermarket jobs are pretty much gone thanks to self-service and adult unemployed who can be available to work casually at any hour of the day. It's disingenuous and insulting to claim that young people suffer so much unemployment because they take the 'easy' option. Since when was living in poverty the 'easy' option?
Alert moderator
TC:
14 May 2014 6:50:17pm
How defeatist. In 2007 there were jobs aplenty. The unemployment rate was 4.7%. After six years of Labor the unemployment rate is 6.00 per cent. Still, there are jobs. Young people should move to where the jobs are. Where there are opportunities.
I can tell you there is a much better chance you will get a decent paying job with a skill behind you that no skills/training.
Alert moderator
Geoff Walker:
14 May 2014 1:44:17pm
Yes, there is no easy way. Personally, I couldn't believe how generous the old system was.
On retirement, I had more than enough to see me through but could still get a part pension although I owned my home and had $800 000 in the bank! The lurks were incredible! Cheap utilities, free fishing & driver's licence, free health care (seniors' card) .......it was embarrassing! It is a shame however that the pruning of the 'millionairre' pensions is not balanced out by giving the savings back to the really poor and needy.
Alert moderator
Sue:
14 May 2014 1:48:22pm
Is it cruel to ensure that Australia as a nation lives within its means? Would you recommend that households and businesses conduct themselves in the same way by spending more than they receive? How long do you really think that behaviour is sustainable?
Alert moderator
Alpo:
14 May 2014 2:40:35pm
Sue, "investment" is the concept missing in that silly Hockeynomics. Investment is meaningful both in the private and in the public sector. Investment that may require borrowing is done by a private company with the purpose of increasing profits, Government invest in order to increase the wealth of the country. Labor Governments also add a socially equitable distribution of that national wealth. The Greens add the environmentally sustainability of those modes of producing wealth.... Progressives strike the best balance.
Alert moderator
damon:
14 May 2014 3:46:21pm
Alpo, the idea that Australia can have the 'best of all possible worlds', without ever having to pay the bill, is only credible to the loony left. Doesn't matter whether you're Labor or Liberal, no-one, in the private or public sector, ever leaves the table without paying.
Alert moderator
Alpo:
14 May 2014 7:43:46pm
damon,
Just contact James Packer and ask him whether he owes any money to anybody (a financial institution of some kind for instance). Then ask him whether at any time in his life he has lived without owing any money to anybody.... Borrowing-investing-repaying-borrowing... etc. is the continuous sound of the business machine when it is running. If you don't hear that sound, it's because the machine has stopped....
Alert moderator
Brian Francis:
14 May 2014 2:04:28pm
Back when Mr.Howard was the PM, he once made a speech that included the words " We decide the circumstances as to who comes to our country" (prefaced). Strong words but none-the-less told the community and the people smugglers that Australia had people who could actually run the country.
Much like those times, we need now for the Abbott Government to stand up and tell the people that they are in charge and this is how it is going to work. If you don't like it - then the next election is your opportunity to make your point.
For now, we are bombarded by every possible part of the community deciding that it is their job to run the Government and not the job of the elected representatives.
None of us expects to go to work and have someone looking over our shoulder critisizing our every move and reminding us that our job is really all about them. Mr.Shorten is guilty of this. He is wanting the top job and is prepared to anything to get it, just as his former Opposition leaders have. Meanwhile he, Mr.Shorten is tricking others to back his words without thinking for themselves and of their country.
Alert moderator
Polly Prissypants:
14 May 2014 2:25:00pm
They are not in charge, actually. The Government works for the people.
Alert moderator
Brian Francis:
14 May 2014 2:38:31pm
Well Polly
To whom do the people work for?
Yes the Government is in charge and that is what we vote for. We need someone to take over the workings of Government so as to ensure that the job is done.
If we as the people continue to attempt to do the Government job, then what is the use of Government? We may as well just make it up as we go and see how it works.
Alert moderator
Dave:
14 May 2014 2:09:13pm
Would those who were born, married, or bought their way into Tony Abbott's hallowed socio economic demographic please join the near queue to collect your prizes.
Everybody else--far queue!!
Alert moderator
Alpo:
14 May 2014 2:35:07pm
"Peter Costello's first budget speech was delivered with him blissfully unaware that his time as treasurer would coincide with the biggest sustained minerals boom"...... and his last budget was delivered with him blissfully unaware that his time as treasurer would end with the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.... So, Costello: The Clueless Treasurer from Beginning to End.
"Except the economy, just like asylum seekers, is not really some vague metaphorical thing, it actually involves people's lives.".... A standing ovation from Alpo, with loud cheers!!!
"only elderly people who listened to right-wing talkback radio"... True, but with one proviso: a 64 year old now was 20 in 1970 (those who were 20 during WWII or in the conservative 1950s are becoming a trickle).... From one generation to another oldies are different and they have different expectations, values and priorities... I am 56 myself.
Alert moderator
Concerned:
14 May 2014 4:13:42pm
So many stereotypes about older people. I am 62 now and when I was 20 I was protesting against the Vietnam War. I think the demographic of those who were teens and in their 20s in the 1960s is a lot different from previous generations who were very happy to conform and be used as cannon fodder by the various governments. In another ten years we may find some VERY angry oldies out protesting on the streets again. And no, I certainly don't listen to right-wing talk back radio.
Alert moderator
AJS:
14 May 2014 2:42:13pm
I am truly over all the complaining.
The persons who educate themselves, show self discipline, commence and grow businesses, contribute not only their taxes but other funds to worthwhile causes deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
To those others, put out your cigarette, put down your beer, go for a jog and then join the rest of the community in contributing to our country (as opposed to sucking it dry)
It's a hard and difficult climb up the hill - but the view is worth it.
Alert moderator
CharlieB:
14 May 2014 4:39:34pm
What about those in a wheel chair, or those with cancer or parkinsons? Don't they deserve some help?
What about those with autism or learning disabilities?
What about those who simply can't get a job because they are over 50 and no one wants them anymore? You can't afford retraining on the dole.
It would be nice if Australians went back to the "help your mate" mentality rather than the current "me, me, me" greed.
I am sure there is a small percent of lazy bludgers out there, but this budget hits out at anyone with some sort of disadvantage rather than having a targeted strategy.
Alert moderator
merrayz:
14 May 2014 2:52:42pm
How can a 27 Year old who has lost their job be expected to wait for 6 months before getting any Support . Not every one at that age has family to rely on. If you are on your own how are you meant to live. This policy disgraceful and Un Australian. ' If they do manage to Survive for 6 months then get support they have six months to get work or Loose the new start again. l don't understand why , punishment for not being able to find work. I'm 63 years old and 1 have to say this governmenIs attack on these young people is a disgrace,It will increase the number of homeless young and an Increase in crime
Alert moderator
Concerned:
14 May 2014 4:21:04pm
I totally agree. I feel ashamed of this heinous new policy to punish those under 30. How much suffering and hardship this will bring to so many young people in our society. Who through no fault of their own may lose their job and then have difficulty finding another within six months. How many hopes and dreams this government will now destroy as they also make attending university less affordable. This is TOTALLY Un Australian. I am also 62 years old.
Alert moderator
Jez:
14 May 2014 7:52:04pm
So another win for private prison operators.
Alert moderator
Jenny:
14 May 2014 2:56:38pm
One interesting thing is that the attached photograph to the article are all seem to be foreign immigrants or international students. As far as I know, Australia is among the list of the three best place to study and immigrate for Chinese. So why not take the chance and make more profits from this group of people?
Alert moderator
Bazza:
14 May 2014 3:03:37pm
We could have a larger surplus during the mining boom of the Howard/Costello era. But they also squander it by giving us tax cuts (I think 7 it is), which we were very happy indeed to receive at the time, plus the Howard family tax benefits for his battlers. If the liberal is saying they are giving us major infrastructure projects now, Howard and Costello could have done that also during the mining boom, which they did not. The deficit crisis was manufactured by Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott to push for their own idealogue. With the mining boom over, we are left with revenue deficit, which could have been fixed by the mining tax that only needs fixing not scrapping.
Alert moderator
Noel:
14 May 2014 3:13:28pm
During the speech by the treasurer I heard not one reference to eighty billion dollars being cut from hospitals and schools. Not one mention.
As has been rightly pointed out, if the Federal Government does not fund schools and hospitals, then schools and hospitals will either close, and new ones will not open, or they will have to severely curtail their services.
In 1942 the Federal Government made a law make them solely responsible for levying Income Tax. States could no longer levy income taxes. Prior to this states had responsibility, as they do now, for schools and hospitals. The difference was that they had the ability to levy charges to pay for them. They no longer have that option to levy charges. They cannot impose taxes.
That is why the Federal Government provides money to the state for the provision of services, such services of schools and hospitals. If the Federal Government decides that it will no longer provide those funds, then we have a predicament.
Schools and hospitals are necessary, I think we can all agree on that. The Federal Government relies on abolishing the deficit by stopping the funding of these essential services.
Schools and hospitals are essential services. They have to be funded. The states are responsible for their provision, but they rely on the Federal Government for the funding. The Government is relying on the states to beg for an increase in the GST. It is the future increase in the GST that the Government is relying on to eliminate the deficit.
And yet the Federal Government does not have the courage to spell this out. last night on national television the Treasurer refused to be drawn into questions of the implications of slashing funds to the states. This is dishonest, but it is not only dishonest, it is sneaky and mean, to not be up front with the Australian people and say that the result of this budget will be a doubling of the GST.
This Government tells lies before the election, breaks every promise after the election, and won't spell out the reality of its budget when it delivers the budget. This is a shameless act of betrayal by Abbott and Hockey.
According to Abbott Hockey and Co we have a sovereign debt problem. If we have a debt crisis in this country, why are we establishing the greatest medical research facility in the world? Twenty billion dollars worth? If we are going to tax doctor's visits and pharmaceuticals but we are not using that money to reduce the "crisis" then why are we doing it? Why are we trying to lead the world in medical research to the tune of twenty billion dollars? This might be something you do when the mining boom is at its peak, it seems incredibly spendthrift to do it during a time of restraint.
If we don't have debt crisis, which is the reason for everything bad under the sun, then why are we axing and taxing to such an extent? We do not need
Alert moderator
Eleni:
14 May 2014 6:08:05pm
.... Noel... Have you not heard about the GST? Stamp Duty, fuel tax?? These and others are State Government taxes.
Alert moderator
Noel:
14 May 2014 6:32:13pm
The GST is a federal tax, stamp duties alone can't pay for schools and hospitals.
Alert moderator
Noel:
14 May 2014 8:15:41pm
Also the States were required to get rid of a host of taxes including stamp duty prior to the introduction of the GST.
Alert moderator
the working man:
14 May 2014 3:16:31pm
As Paul Keating said " the liberals are just nasty, mean little people.
It took an old age pensioner to call Abbott out, the MSM is in his
pocket big time. To all the mushrooms who voted for him, there is
only one Tones Abbott. That's the one that was on display over many
years mainly as Howard's attack dog.
Alert moderator
molpol:
14 May 2014 3:18:21pm
I do not believe this is a fair or equitable budget at all - if there was genuinely a budget crisis and a genuine need to raise revenue then starting with the superannuation, fixing massive tax avoidance mechanisms, negative gearing wind-down and tackling the super-profits would have been a better place to start. Then by all means tackle the generous welfare system - but to start where they have signals a political agenda to dismantle the welfare system in this country. I hope this all comes back to bite this government so hard for their dishonesty, arrogance, hypocrisy and obvious lack of respect for Australian people. How is making poor or disadvantaged even more so going to help this country?
Alert moderator
Matthew Hutchens:
14 May 2014 3:25:15pm
Vapidly clear which 'class' the author of this piece belongs to. No - no such as thing as middle class welfare darling. Yes - Labor, who institutionalized (but did not first provide) middle class welfare obviously managed everyone's tax dollars better.
Puke.
As a person who has never even managed to achieve 'middle class', as it is so eloquently put, I say that $100 000 per annum plus is plenty.
That is of course unless an individual/family feels entitled to certain of the more expensive aspects of life.
Journalist like this writing behind a legislatively protected full-time job with benefits (including middle class welfare) can all go and get stuffed.
The youth will never even get full time jobs the way this economy is going. We just can't keep paying unequally to failures who achieve nothing.
Alert moderator
Forrest Gardener:
14 May 2014 3:37:13pm
Greg, it's a favourite of the Labor Fan Club, but tax is received in dollars, not as a percentage of GDP.
Disagree? Find the law which demands that a business pay a percentage of GDP in tax.
Your overall argument that Labor spent wisely but lacked revenue is about as convincing as the push factors it claimed caused the flood of boat people.
Denial is not just a river in Africa!
Alert moderator
Alpo:
14 May 2014 8:01:13pm
"push factors it claimed caused the flood of boat people."... Go and live in Afghanistan or Iraq, my dear Forrest, if you want to understand what a push factor is.
Also, unlike you, Greg is in the business of understanding, which requires analysing variables in an appropriate context.
BTW, did you notice that this Government's revenues have been increasing and yet under their watch the debt has skyrocketed?.... I would call that: Mismanagement!
Alert moderator
Realist:
14 May 2014 4:16:00pm
I would love some of the critics here to deliver a better budget. Come on, where's the alternative?
The Labor party had six years to demonstrate their expertise and look where that got us. Wayne Swan never ever could find that surplus he claimed he had delivered!
It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and throw rocks but leading by example? Nuh, just whinge whinge whinge.
Oh well, Australia is back on track and the Aussie character will shine through. This reminds me of the aftermath of Whitlam and we overcame that after a decade or so of hard work.
Alert moderator
Noel:
14 May 2014 4:55:35pm
And thirteen years of Labor Government under Hawke and Keating.
Alert moderator
Rob:
14 May 2014 7:15:16pm
1.Keep the Carbon Tax then convert to CPRS
2. Fix the MRRT to what Henry suggested
3. Can the PPL
4. Remove Super tax benefits
5. Abolish negative gearing
6. Establish small business development bank.
7. Can the medical research future fund-prevention is better than cure-outsource research to CSIRO.
8.Establish a renewable energy future fund.
9.Raise the GST to 12% on non essential items.
10. Join in the introduction of a global financial services tax.
11. Ensure milti nationals like Apple pay tax
12. Abolish family trusts.
13. Turn super into a wealth fund managed by Government agencies as in Singapore and Norway.
There you go- a bakers dozen.
That should fund Health-Education- NDIS- the environment and and give tax cuts to where they are needed.
BTW- I would keep the work or learn policy.
Alert moderator
Rob:
14 May 2014 11:59:57pm
Well Realist- what have you got to say to that alternative budget to the rubbish Hockey dished out?
Alert moderator
Francis:
15 May 2014 3:02:06pm
Yep, and while working so hard, those good folks who got sick or were injured could go to the doctor, for free, because of Medicare. Thanks Mr. Whitlam.
Many of those working hard were doing so in jobs that required advanced training: doctors for example, and medical scientists, or like myself, medicinal chemists. They were trained at Uni. They got their degrees. For free. Thanks Mr. Whitlam.
Now that I think on it, all the politicians older than Wyatt Roy who sit in Federal Parliament, and who have degrees (mostly in law) were able to get those degrees FREE. Thanks Mr. Whitlam.
Your life, and the life of every single Australian, was made a little better, a little less stressful, a little less painful, a little less costly.......thanks to Gough Whitlam.
I would have thought people would be grateful. But I guess in the conservative mindset, it is always, "what have you done for me lately?"
Alert moderator
borncynic:
14 May 2014 4:47:51pm
Removing social security from young people will be a false saving. It will just increase crime and increase the cost of the criminal justice systems for the states.
If you force people to they will find money by selling drugs or stealing cars.
Alert moderator
Ffejjie:
14 May 2014 5:50:30pm
I think the point is if young people are not working or studying they become disaffected from the workforce and the effect can last all of their careers.
Alert moderator
Erika:
14 May 2014 5:36:32pm
Here are my predictions for Australia in the next couple of years:
The economy will go into recession. This in turn will cut government receipts, thus adding to the budgetary problems because the problem (not crisis) is a result of tax cuts made in the last years of the Howard government and continued by Rudd.
People who are not young nor old nor unemployed nor disabled will also end up feeling the pinch, because they will have to kick in extra to support their adult children and elderly, disabled or unemployed relatives.
The suicide rate will rise, particularly among the young and the elderly. (Strange that, people in these age groups are already more likely to commit suicide than the general population, why is that?)
The overall death rate will rise, as people, particularly in the most vulnerable groups, are unable to afford to see the doctor and buy their medicines, as people put off visits to the doctor until after pay day and as people try to go to work when they are unfit to work. In particular, expect Aboriginal mortality rates to rise.
The rate of homelessness will rise.
The numbers of people seeking assistance from charities will increase.
There is only one bright side that I can see to the budget and that is that it will ensure that any political party that espouses the sorts of far-right economic policies that this budget illustrates will find it harder and harder to get anyone to vote for them. The electorate kicked Howard out because of Work Choices. Abbott said, ?No surprises,? and then brought down this budget. Voters are unlikely to forgive that.
Alert moderator
Alvean:
15 May 2014 1:59:22pm
That is how I see it as well. the thought of having to cram my adult children into our tiny home if the business they work for goes belly up or the government department downsizes keeps me awake at night.
Alert moderator
Firefly:
14 May 2014 6:04:59pm
What sovereign debt crisis?
We have a govt debt situation but it is no where near a crisis.
Scare the buggers that the tactics of our class warfare warrior led govt.
The problem is the LNP made debt an ideological obsession rather than an economic issue to be dealt with over time.
Alert moderator
Reinhard:
14 May 2014 6:14:00pm
Abbott said on SBS on election eve: "No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS."
By my calculation that would be "there will be no carbon tax under a govt I lead" to the power of five! Abbott knew when he made all those extravagant promises that he would never be able to keep his word, so he only made them to get elected.
In their arrogance this govt is telling us "Yes we may have lied to you before the election, but it was for your own good, honest...."
I was floored by the arrogance of "neoconomist" Judith Sloan on the Drum TV just before, saying with a straight face "well if people were paying attention they should have realised that something wasn't quite right". Unbelievable.
Abbott and co also wants us all to believe that removing the carbon and mining taxes will increase revenue, paying polluters our hard earned tax dollars will get them to reduce emissions, and now cuts to funding of public health and education won't effect outcomes..
Pigs might fly............
Alert moderator
ozpm:
14 May 2014 6:24:13pm
If you are going to update a graph at least get the scale right! So Government Revenue under the coalition will be approaching $500 trillion in 2017? Sourced from the budget papers? Sloppy.
Alert moderator
lookbothways:
14 May 2014 6:31:13pm
This budget could have been responsible without being cruel. Check out the things that DIDN'T get cut. Let's look at health as an example. The "co-payment" is a slug on the poorest. Everyone who can afford to pays a gap anyway. Cutting the private health insurance rebate would have been a much better way to claw some money back on health.
Alert moderator
GrumpiSkeptic:
14 May 2014 6:34:24pm
Cruel to be kind...
Yes, how true. Joe Hockey wanted us to know that ahead of us, there are potholes, or rather Black-holes all over. Life is dim and full of hardships. The age of entitlements is over, finished, no more, "EX".
I heard him answered one of the many questions about petrol excise increases. He reckoned it is only going to be 40 cents per week extra for a family. Yes, you got me right...40 lousy cents per week. Lets assume 4 cents per litre extra. So he assumes that we are only going to use 10 litres of petrol per week. For folks who only ever needed to drive to the local schools, to the pubs, or the supermarket, surely 10 litres just might be sufficient. However, if you are to drive 20-30 Km one way to work, I think it is going to be multiples of 40 cents.
Think again, Joe Hockey. Yes, think very hard when you drive past those "utterly offensive" windmills. I presume your fuel bills are fully met by tax payers?
Yes, I know of dole bludgers, but I also know of many people who fell on hard-luck and lost their jobs. Take the Holden/Ford factory workers for example, they will get hit hard. But in the world of free enterprise, "Stiff sh*t, mate !"
Then out of the hard-nose approach, comes the "kindness". The kindness comes in the form of "Medical Research Future Funds". Apparently, out of the gloominess there is a ray of hope. Yes, they want the $7 collected to fight the diseases before they even have a chance to land a blow on us, or in fact, the entire humanity. According to Joe, we are going to be the "leading" nation in medical research, and we are going to have the largest pool of pennies for such purposes. Grand schemes indeed. A legacy for Joe Hockey?
Hang on a minute though...What about those "utterly offensive" windmills? You know the ones that will provide us with clean energy? But these "offensive" gadgets don't really figure in the "COAL-ition" scheme of things, do they ?
Alert moderator
foolking:
14 May 2014 7:05:32pm
The one thing that the govt is going to hang its hat on is employment growth, how else could they possibly account for withdrawing benefits from the most needy, that would be political suicide.
The growth will be via private enterprise engaging these people, educating/ training or visa versa, the books will look good and Joe will borrow for it.
If this is going to really work it has to be acknowledged that some people don't fit the round hole.
Therefore artists , eccentrics , people carrying ptsdisorder, koories etc need to be treated respectfully, useful programs or appointments to check in, all in the name of employment/feeling good about yourself.
Employment being a right not a privilege.
Don't see this govt as being a group of pricks, they are just a little reticent about being seen to care, its the conservative way.
There is bugger all difference between our political parties, our country
Alert moderator
anarcho-syndiclist:
14 May 2014 7:44:27pm
I think the PM got the Robin Hood archetype the wrong way round, it's not supposed to be rob from the poor and give to the rich.
Seriously how can he live with himself. And what of the 1% who own 80% of the wealth, where there should be the most heavy lifting, there are only handouts.
Somebody wake me from this nightmare!
Alert moderator
Noel:
14 May 2014 8:10:17pm
During the years of the Howard Government there were massive tax reductions to the wealthiest, in the last year alone a ten thousand dollar tax break was delivered to those earning over $150,000. This is why we have a problem with the budget. The budget is not in crisis, and the problems were not caused by any spending of Labor, it was the foolhardiness of Howard and Costello, desperate to buy votes, that gave away our revenue base.
We should not be taxing the sick and the elderly, we should be redressing the problems that Costello and Howard created, by fixing revenue with appropriate taxation measure ON THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY.
Stop the bullsh*t about heavy lifting whilst you dance the piccadillo and smoke Cuban cigars.
Alert moderator
foolking:
14 May 2014 8:33:18pm
Rob:
Thoroughly enjoyed your 13 points well done, how to implement them without getting the bucket load tipped is the trick. Hope someone relevant is taking note.
Alert moderator
blue collar:
15 May 2014 12:29:36am
the only way of lifting a country out of debt,is a middle class that has a disposable income,the wealthy,multinationals and disadvantaged,do not contribute to a countys prosperity,only the middle class can do this.An excellent movie called inequality for all should be mandatory viewing for all wannabe economists
Alert moderator
Zakmann:
15 May 2014 6:49:51am
The thing to remember here is that not one politician or any of their mates are going to suffer from this budget.
The only cruelty suffered will be handed out by Abbott and Hockey as they hit those least able to survive such cuts in the budget.
Australia is not in a debt crisis as the LNP would have one believe, the only crisis that Austrlia is suffering is one of ideology being rammed down the throats of nearly every Australian who is working, on a disability pension or a pensioner. So much for conservatives looking after their constituents the only people who will benefit from this abysmally poor budget are the wealthy, corporations and the politicians themselves as they rake in yet more money into their blotted pension funs and retirement allowances.
Now is the time when Australians should be looking at the application of honesty, integrity and responsibility into government, to do this, all those sitting in government (no matter what party) should be held personally responsible for failure in economic and social policy. Australia has had three of the most appalling bad governments in its history under Howard, Rudd and Gillard and we have a fourth under Abbott. The waste of missed opportunity from the resources boom and the corporate sectors over nearly two decades has been disguising. Money that should have become Australian revenue has gone to enrich the bloated profits of company bottom lines while, the tax payer has had to dish out incentive to companies that never had any long term plains to stay in the country - look at the Ford, Genral Motors and Toyota (and Mitsubishi that cost both the South Australian State & the Federal government huge amounts when the company pulled out).
So, not only has the Abbott government given Austrlia one of the worse and most socially inequitable budgets ever seen, it has also accrued the largest deficit seen in Australia for decades, the Abbott governments unbounded incompetence, is unmet and can never be out shone, especially when one takes into account that the Abbott government has lost Australia it?s entire car manufacturing industry.
Alert moderator
BJA:
15 May 2014 8:16:53am
Apart from a lot of financially almost pointless ugly brutality which can better be described as sadistic than anything else, it is beyond me to understand what this budget is supposed to do.
I can see that road construction engineering companies in Sydney and Melbourne will benefit - but even then Anthony Albanese has very clearly shown that the entire claim of new money for road construction is, like much else that Hockey said just a downright lie.
The only thing I've been able to discern in this government's every move is a transference of the wealth of the community from the poor to the rich.
Just what use is that?
Do their little hearts swell with pride to see ever bigger and bigger boats pointlessly tied up side by side at the pontoons behind the waterfront homes with two or three expensive vehicles occupying some of the five garages in front of the houses with six toilets and two occupants?
I think Abbott, Hockey and all their mob have lost their bloody marbles.
I mean just how many toilets can two people use at the one time?
When I look out my window I can see:
a highway disintegrating to the point of being dangerous to drive on;
The mountain through which a railway used to run which is now an accommodation for bats;
A small proportion of what used be productive farms carrying crops.
Trees blowing in the wind with not a turbine in sight;
Sunlight drenching the country from which neither timber, crops nor solar energy is harvested.
Tell me again, why did we murder all the aboriginals and take their country?
I'll again peer into the entrails of the budget. Perhaps there is something I have missed.
Alert moderator
NinjaAussie:
15 May 2014 9:02:00am
Sorry Zing but that is not true. What we have here is a case of and idealogical view of how a government should operate foisted on most (not all) of us by way of a very flawed and calculated approach clearly relying on most of the population rolling over and playing dead. Your view is ignorant of the reality substantiated by any non aligned economist and the figures. I can only assume what's in the wind wont apply to you and yours?
Alert moderator
pete:
15 May 2014 9:25:34am
in a country like Australia there is enough for all.
not just the pollys and there rich mates and china I think
Alert moderator
Opavanm:
15 May 2014 10:49:15am
This budget proves, we are becoming a ruthless banana republic. No argument suffices. Action is required so decent people can sleep with a clear conscious. All party followers outside the liberal party should say no to all changes and cause a re-election. Let the population decide their future.
The current government is a disaster for the future of Australia and our youth in particular.
Alert moderator
Steve_C:
15 May 2014 10:52:44am
"Cruel to be Kind" is OK when you're dealing with individuals who are mentally well balanced and not driven by primal fear in the way that so many Australians of today clearly are.
What such primal fear laden individuals remember isn't the outcome... It's the means of obtaining the outcome they remember with clarity, if not a degree of factual distortion or even fantasizing, that helps embellish the personal narrative to the point where there is no possibility for another interpretation.
Of course, such fantasizing and factual distortion by individuals whose primal fear/s define their preferences when it comes to putting a veneer over their always bubbling just below the surface fears, places them at a disadvantage when it comes to susceptibility to manipulation by those who desire to not only quell their own fears but to get such an ego boost from doing so, that they can almost convince themselves that they're 'cured' - i.e. our leaders in all fields of endeavour.
So essentially, one needs to ask is there any need to be kind or cruel to individuals who are so directed by fear that neither in the end is going to be seen as anything other than manipulative string pulling by equally fear driven individuals who see 'puppet masters' every time they look at themselves in the mirror?
Just get the job done without all the agenda drive excrescences attached.
No need to be 'cruel' or any other 'negative quality' in order to make the 'kindness' of the outcome of doing the job even more apparent than it would be if you didn't try to be such a manipulator...
Alert moderator
Early Grayce:
15 May 2014 11:22:15am
In a country with roughly 5% unemployment which is higher for younger people the new social security measures will fail over 5% of people under 30. People on Newstart already live well below the poverty line and without extra training or education opportunities will be left without any money for essentials for 6 months a year.
If someone is enrolled as a student and finds work during their course they will be obliged to leave the course or face the prospect of starving for six months after completing their course. If they have unwittingly taken a position with an unscrupulous employer and are employed for only a short time when promised sustained work they may find themselves out of work, without the ability to re-enter study until the next intake and unable to feed themselves.
Without any income more people will need to turn to begging and other crimes just to feed themselves while they are living without the burden of accommodation. Some people would say that prostitution will become a buyers market and prices will be driven down while many more younger people work in the industry but I do not see people driven into the industry out of desperation as a good thing. I also do not look forward to being mugged in the street nor paying higher premiums for home contents insurance.
With extra crime also comes the need for extra policing and extra gaols to hold these young prisoners so there may be more people employed this way and free accommodation for those who resort to crime. These gaols will also assist in training of people in more lucrative crimes and assist in the creation of large criminal networks.
Alert moderator
oofa53:
15 May 2014 12:36:49pm
Abbott is unfit to be Prime Minister.
Alert moderator
Alvean:
15 May 2014 1:49:25pm
There is nothing responsible about the measures as they stand for the under 30s and a whole lot of pain. If you remove any hope of a safety net for the average unemployed person who spends less than 6 months off work, then what you will do is stop them spending on anything. there are a lot of businesses that rely on young people spending their discretionary income and now they will have to make sure they have a lot of funds saved up just to cover job loss. not for saving for a house or for a future. You will also have a group ripe for exploitation as they will not risk losing their jobs. You have Gen X who will now have to be prepared to feed and house their children at a time when previous generations had long ago left the nest. they will not thank you for it either.
Simply intorducing the work for the dole and the consequences of not doing it being to lose your payment would have quickly found those who are milking the sytem without the intergenerational pain and angst this extreme measure will cause.
I am also curious as to which jobs you think will be lost when the states try to balance their budget by reducing their workforce.
Alert moderator
Comments for this story are closed.