Search results

It shows both. The figures show revenue growing at higher than average levels from 2003 to 2007, then no growth, then a year of negative growth. To go from 8% growth to negative 3% growth in two years is an appreciable change in revenue to me. Revenue for the 2011 FY is only 2.5% above 2008...

Revenue figures add some more detail. As we can see, revenue was pouring in during the second half of the Howard govt. But where did it go? 01-02 Revenue inc $4.5B Surplus decrease $7B 02-03 Revenue inc $17B Surplus inc $6 03-04 Revenue inc $13B Surplus inc $0.6B 04-05 Revenue...

CGT depends on when you buy and sell, not just when you sell. If someone bought in 1990, and sold in 2010, they would have made a bigger gain than someone buying in 2004 and selling in 2006.

Umm, no. Revenues declined in 2008-09, and again in 2009-10. Probably something to do with the GFC.

It's quite simple. Because there was loads of money coming in, due to (mainly) the mining boom and the GST. An increase in the surplus doesn't automatically mean a cut in spending. It could mean an increase in revenue. And in the mid-2000's, Govt revenues were growing faster than spending...

Maybe, but would it drag down govt revenues by $2b a year? Thats what it would have to do, to be level with the Direct Action plan.

The Carbon tax is a tax, and is revenue to the government, not a cost. There are associated handouts, but at worst, it is supposed to be revenue neutral. Abbott's Direct Action plan is conservatively estimated to cost (according to Malcolm Turnbull) $2 billion a year.

Looks like someone has drunk the Liberal Party kool-aid. Labor are trying to reduce Howard era spending, only the Liberal Party is blocking passage of the legislation in the Senate. Your simplistic arguments don't hold water. Go back and have a look at Howard's campaign launch in 2004...