Carbon tax

[bluestorm]

The Labor party here hit it fast and hard. And it obviously worked.

Seeya.

Every country hit it hard and fast. Anyway, given you are so concerned about the environment for the kids and grandkids, I'd think you would be concerned about the $150B is debt that Labor have accumulated, the wasted dollars of stupid schemes, etc. You kids will have to pay it back with reduced living standards.

Enjoy. Signing out.

 

[StefanA]

I would have thought that here of all places people would understand the concept of borrowing to create a revenue generating asset.

People here, of all places, understand the additional interest on NEW borrowings require NEW revenues; not the same revenues as exist today.

So where's the new revenues to pay the new interest come from? All the NET new onshore jobs NBN and renewable power stations create?

 

[shiftyphil]

People here, of all places, understand the additional interest on NEW borrowings require NEW revenues; not the same revenues as exist today.

So where's the new revenues to pay the new interest come from?

From the wholesale fees paid to NBN Co by RSPs. (There's also a reduction in the costs of providing services to schools, government departments, hospitals etc, and a GDP boost).

 

[evand]

labor has said the economy will be back in surplus by 2013-14. I'm not one for baseless predictions. But if its not then, it should be soon after. So, more crazy stuff from you. Seeya (for the 100th time)

Every country hit it hard and fast. Anyway, given you are so concerned about the environment for the kids and grandkids, I'd think you would be concerned about the $150B is debt that Labor have accumulated, the wasted dollars of stupid schemes, etc. You kids will have to pay it back with reduced living standards.

Enjoy. Signing out.

 

[lizzie]

More unbased future predictions and personal stuff. The stimulus was the reason this country is in such great financial shape. That is, i think unarguable.

I thought the stimulus was possible due to the large surplus we had in hand courtesy of the previous Liberal government - not Labors current mismanagement - and our coal/iron ore export links with China and India who didn't suffer from a downturn?

Now that the surplus is well and truly gone, a massive debt is well and truly in place and the current government is still mismanaging (siimilar to those countries who are now suffering badly) ... what happens the next round of pain hits?

Your arguements are getting more personal, abusive and catty ...

 

[bluestorm]

labor has said the economy will be back in surplus by 2013-14. I'm not one for baseless predictions. But if its not then, it should be soon after. So, more crazy stuff from you. Seeya (for the 100th time)

My god evand. You invest in property. You trade in shares. Surely your are not as naive as that. Labor have never has a surplus in a generation. When the world heads into another downturn, Labor will use this as an excuse for not delivering in 2013-14.

See you.

 

[evand]

My point was that our current great economic position will do us in great stead going forward. Rather than being in a recession which takes years to correct due to lack of tax receipts, etc

And yes, the money did come from the previous Liberal surplus. Which came from lack of infrastructure, health, welfare, etc spending as Lib govts. Not to mention benefiting from huge economic reforms implemented by the previous Keating/ Hawke govts.

I disagree with your last sentence. But if my posts have become a bit strident lately, how else to balance the full on right wing anti Labor factless assault on here.

I thought the stimulus was possible due to the large surplus we had in hand courtesy of the previous Liberal government - not Labors current mismanagement - and our coal/iron ore export links with China and India who didn't suffer from a downturn?

Now that the surplus is well and truly gone, a massive debt is well and truly in place and the current government is still mismanaging (siimilar to those countries who are now suffering badly) ... what happens the next round of pain hits?

Your arguements are getting more personal, abusive and catty ...

 

[evand]

Labor generally dont have surplus because they have to make up for the lack of infrastructure, health, education etc spending of the previous Libs.

Their priority is to build a $ war chest, not nation building. Apparently its called fiscal conservative.

My god evand. You invest in property. You trade in shares. Surely your are not as naive as that. Labor have never has a surplus in a generation. When the world heads into another downturn, Labor will use this as an excuse for not delivering in 2013-14.

See you.

 

[tom32]

While just about every western country has interest rates at or close to zero and unemployment close to 10%, with Australia actually had to raaise rates as the economy was powering ahead post GFC (albeit the commodities boom helped) i think there is quite a bit to show for it.

The benefits of Australia not being in that dire economic situation will be evidenced by future generations.

While the ramifications of countries having massive economic fallout due to the GFC will be felt negatively for years and years to come.

But, of course all this doesnt mater to Liberal supporting, short term thinking economic rationalism.

Don't get me wrong in answering this I do not want to appear to be a liberal fan as they are not a lot better around public infrastructure albeit less watefull but probably do even less than labor over time.

We appear to have a choice in this country; liberals who privatise or do PPP projects so we all pay for our infrastructure in taxes and then when we use it and many worthwhile public infrastructure just does not get done.

or

labor; who have a crack at building stuff but appear to want to build things which are politically motivated. I believe good infrastructure can give a party political credibility but only in the long term. It is actually often painfull for the party who embarks on anything dramatic but in the long term people will say, well lucky the Labor party got that bridge built etc. I just am not sure we will ever say that about the NBN.

What you are saying above however in my view is that their wastefull (OK, you do not call it wastefull) fiscal stimulous allowed us to make it through the GFC. I agree it did, but Keynes explained that (para.) while anyone can bury bottles of money to be dug up by punters* or build pyramids to create activity and employment our thinking public servants and politicians could surely come up with things that would meet future demand like public infrastructure. It would appear to me he was wrong on the capacity of politicians...

It is easy to raise aggregate demand with fistfulls of cash, the difficult thing that only good governments understand is to spend it in a way that will provide capacity to meet future demand. School canteens and insulation and cash handouts do not do this.

I actually had some confidence in Rudd at first when he spoke of infrastructure Australia and building a big austrailia (which I later learn't was just having an australia with 50million people but building nothing...) but then as infrastructure Australia were passing down their to do list, he was already throwing cash out because he said none of those jobs were shovel ready! I don't know but I would have said throwing money away when perhaps 6 months later even after a technical recession we could have been powering away with 40bn odd in public infrastructure like new ports, rail, airports, roads, hell even fast trains for the green voters! Surely more worthy than school halls and cash handouts?

Again labor often gets the talking bits right at first but then fail on deliver. I actually agree less with the Liberals just concentrating on debt. They could have saved billions more or spent it on infrastructure but handed it back in tax cuts. I could not care (and nor would ratings agencies) if Australia had a large fiscal deficit as long as we were building something that allowed us to pay it back. I cannot see cash handouts nor school halls doing this.



* We did not even bury our cash handouts as most Australians would not know which end of the shovel digs we just handed the cash out.

 

[evand]

The stimulus was generally in 2 parts. It needed to be hit fast to stop the immediate recession hitting other countries (the cash handouts) and then medium/longer term.(infrastructure building)

And yes, we can all say that it could have been implemented with more fiscal imagination but i think that is beyond politicians of either color. Dont you?

The point is. It worked. And worked very well.

btw: Tax cuts are much more popular than infrastructure spending, which is why the Libs love them. But they do SFA for nation building.

It has been a historical fact in this country that Labor are willing to make the big reforms for the better of the country, even if theyre sometimes unpopular. While conservative Liberal squirrel money away and work on short term political popularity.

Don't get me wrong in answering this I do not want to appear to be a liberal fan as they are not a lot better around public infrastructure albeit less watefull but probably do even less than labor over time.

We appear to have a choice in this country; liberals who privatise or do PPP projects so we all pay for our infrastructure in taxes and then when we use it and many worthwhile public infrastructure just does not get done.

or

labor; who have a crack at building stuff but appear to want to build things which are politically motivated. I believe good infrastructure can give a party political credibility but only in the long term. It is actually often painfull for the party who embarks on anything dramatic but in the long term people will say, well lucky the Labor party got that bridge built etc. I just am not sure we will ever say that about the NBN.

What you are saying above however in my view is that their wastefull (OK, you do not call it wastefull) fiscal stimulous allowed us to make it through the GFC. I agree it did, but Keynes explained that (para.) while anyone can bury bottles of money to be dug up by punters* or build pyramids to create activity and employment our thinking public servants and politicians could surely come up with things that would meet future demand like public infrastructure. It would appear to me he was wrong on the capacity of politicians...

It is easy to raise aggregate demand with fistfulls of cash, the difficult thing that only good governments understand is to spend it in a way that will provide capacity to meet future demand. School canteens and insulation and cash handouts do not do this.

I actually had some confidence in Rudd at first when he spoke of infrastructure Australia and building a big austrailia (which I later learn't was just having an australia with 50million people but building nothing...) but then as infrastructure Australia were passing down their to do list, he was already throwing cash out because he said none of those jobs were shovel ready! I don't know but I would have said throwing money away when perhaps 6 months later even after a technical recession we could have been powering away with 40bn odd in public infrastructure like new ports, rail, airports, roads, hell even fast trains for the green voters! Surely more worthy than school halls and cash handouts?

Again labor often gets the talking bits right at first but then fail on deliver. I actually agree less with the Liberals just concentrating on debt. They could have saved billions more or spent it on infrastructure but handed it back in tax cuts. I could not care (and nor would ratings agencies) if Australia had a large fiscal deficit as long as we were building something that allowed us to pay it back. I cannot see cash handouts nor school halls doing this.



* We did not even bury our cash handouts as most Australians would not know which end of the shovel digs we just handed the cash out.

 

[Aaron_C]

and the GST wasn't a big liberal reform?

 

[StefanA]

From the wholesale fees paid to NBN Co by RSPs. (There's also a reduction in the costs of providing services to schools, government departments, hospitals etc, and a GDP boost).

But they are not new revenue streams are they? SP fees are already paid to wholesale providers, who are not paying interest on 43B of debt. Let's be clear, the household is having 43b of debt imposed on it that it doesn't currently have.

If the interest on the 43B is 6%, that's 2.6B pa that has to be diverted from wherever it goes now; without even paying down principal.

And what are current gross revenues from broadband? well there's around 8m broadband subscribers....at an average (say) $65 per mth, that's 6.2Bpa. And 2.6/6.2 = 42% of gross revenues go in interest alone. wow, pearler of a business model. Suppose NBN can always charge the household more for the additional productivity of fast bb.

Hey, but if the govt gets the 43b from general revenue (taxes), or the sale of assets, it won't have to pay interest at all.

 

[evand]

Yes, it was finally introduced by Howard in 2000 but the idea was Paul Keatings.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_Services_Tax_(Australia)
Introduction of the GST

[edit]1980s
The idea for a broad-based consumption tax was first proposed by then federal treasurer Paul Keating at the 1985 Tax Summit but was dropped at the behest of then Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke after pressure from the ACTU, welfare groups and business, which did not like its association with proposals for capital gains and fringe benefits taxes.

[edit]1990s
The idea was refloated in 1991 by the opposition Liberal-National Coalition, and was the centrepiece of the opposition's "Fightback!" platform at the 1993 election, when Keating was Prime Minister. The opposition had difficulty explaining the policy, as illustrated in leader Dr John Hewson's Birthday Cake Interview, and Keating's campaign exploited public distrust of the GST. The GST was to varying degrees considered a factor in the opposition's surprise election loss of the 'unloseable election' in 1993. In 1994 The Liberals decided to discard the remnants of Fightback and Alexander Downer replaced Dr Hewson as Liberal leader.

John Howard was re-elected leader of the Liberal party in 1995, and pledged "never, ever" to introduce the GST.[1] Howard led the Liberal-National Coalition to a large victory in the 1996 elections.

and the GST wasn't a big liberal reform?

 

[chris_qld]

I'm out.
I've found some comments are confrontational and rude.

 

[Deltaberry]

I wake up this morning to see the ALP hitting new primary vote lows that no party has ever achieved in the history of he polls. They should get some sort of trophy for that.

They now have 26% of the primary votes - that must make them the most unrepresentative major party in Australian history, though they're probably the most representative minor party. Hah!

 

[tom32]

And yes, we can all say that it could have been implemented with more fiscal imagination but i think that is beyond politicians of either color. Dont you?

The point is. It worked. And worked very well.

btw: Tax cuts are much more popular than infrastructure spending, which is why the Libs love them. But they do SFA for nation building.

It has been a historical fact in this country that Labor are willing to make the big reforms for the better of the country, even if theyre sometimes unpopular. While conservative Liberal squirrel money away and work on short term political popularity.

I actually got a little exited on the eve of a fiscal stimulous package to be delivered by Rudd and as he launched into it mention of Keynes and other economists who understood the role of public works in both a nations long term prosperity but in the short term the boost to activity when a country needs activity.

To then go through the list and see what it was comprised of I was fairly certain that Keynes would have been turning in his grave to have his name associated with such a stimulous package.

His quote from his general theory of money, interest and employment;

"To dig holes in the ground", paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services. It is not reasonable, however, that a sensible community should be content to remain dependent on such fortuitous and often wasteful mitigations when once we understand the influences upon which effective demand depends.

clearly the modern labor party understood the first bit but Swan and rudd did not grasp what 'not content' meant when they handed out $1000.00 to all and sundry.

I do agree with you though that in general Labor have delivered more infrastructure just the current lot have done what they percieved as political projects to have them come back and bite them when the waste was made clear. Even the cash handouts when we have all forgotten the $1000.00 in the back pocket (Those lucky sods who got it) are now down in the history books as being wastefull. For near 20bn we could have had lasting projects that people could see and say we did that in response to the GFC rather like the Sydney harbour bridge that in some small way carried Sydneysiders through the great depression in Sydney.

Now about that GST and Liberals big reform:

It is a tax reform. Taxation policy is important but a really wealthy country is not wealth because they have slick tax policy. Some become tax havens and rely on this sure but not countries as large as Australia, we could not support such a system for fear that we turn out like Ireland.

A countries wealth and the prosperity of its citizens is primarily a function of its natural endowment, public and private infrastructure and human capital around its education and work ethic. Taxes are a secondary issue and really serve a redistribution function and can be used to direct investment but they are not going to create a great country on their own.

Australia will get left behind the likes of China while we point and laugh at them for building too many highways and rail systems meanwhile we give out cash and buy TV's...

I could think of nothing better than too many ports to get things into and out of Australia. This is how you "subsidise" businesses in your own country making them competitive. You give them all the infrastructure they need to be competitive against the world at large then tax them to build more of it. You do not put cost imposts on them and give them complex tax systems but above all else you have the infrastructure that allows them to do business and export to the world. Overlay that with Keynes' thoughts and ask yourself, what better time to build this infrastructure than on the cusp of a recession?

 

[lizzie]

Labor generally dont have surplus because they have to make up for the lack of infrastructure, health, education etc spending of the previous Libs.

ummm - turn around from near $100bil in the black to $100+bil in the red ... and yet to see any new infrastructure or increased health/education spending (asides from some school building that came in at 60% more expensive than the same buildings built for private schools).

So, no infrstructure, health or education from Labor either - just wasted debt.

Do not be mislead - I am not a staunch Liberal or Labor or anything. Generally I support the local candidate whom is the best for my particular area ... actually this year was the first I voted for a "party" because they had a darn good candidate

 

[evand]

Is this fact or just your opinion? If its fact, can you reveal your reliable sources? Thanks Lizzie

ummm - turn around from near $100bil in the black to $100+bil in the red ... and yet to see any new infrastructure or increased health/education spending (asides from some school building that came in at 60% more expensive than the same buildings built for private schools).

So, no infrstructure, health or education from Labor either - just wasted debt.

 

[lizzie]

Is this fact or just your opinion? If its fact, can you reveal your reliable sources? Thanks Lizzie

for what bit?

Same as yours - some opinion - some fact ... at least I'm not rude.

 

[tom32]

Is this fact or just your opinion? If its fact, can you reveal your reliable sources? Thanks Lizzie

You could look at the newspaper article from the day fiscal stimulous was announced. It clearly listed where the federal money was going. The closest thing to real infrastructure was under a billion to local councils to build well needed footpaths.

Sure they have now delivered projects with the states which is the medium term stimulous you mention but I would still take issue with the waste around "projects" which were clearly politically motivated.

Big infrastructre projects invariably **** some stake holders off. Whether it be greenies, local residents etc. Labor now shy away from them for this reason in my opinion.

Australians generally seem to have forgotten that to make a cake you need to break some eggs and they well could be the eggs of a legless lizard or spotted owl...

Take the riches of your efficient economy and then invest them into the environment to a much greater effect than hamstringing every business due to a lack of infrastructure and stupid complex taxation policy and other regulation around workers comps etc.