Interest rates under an Abbott government?

[evand]

Not making CG during the GFC doesnt make sense. It would make sense if the asset was bought and sold in the GFC period. But I'm sure plenty we're sold during the GFC and bought well before it.

Therefore I think CG revenue change during the GFC to the govt Would be minimal.

Not a bad try tho.

That's cause no one is making capital gains in the GFC, it's got nothing to do with a high taxing government. Seriously...

 

[Dazz]

Its a bit too small for me to read, even when I try to zoom in... any possibility of making it a bit bigger, or telling us the information that it contains.

No worries penny.....it goes to the heart of whether a party is a competent economic manager of the country's finances or not.

Let's look at the last 20 years ;

FY.........Govt.......PM.............Surplus / Deficit

91-92.....Labor......Keating.......12.6 billion
92-93.....Labor......Keating.......18.1 billion
93-94.....Labor......Keating.......18.2 billion
94-95.....Labor......Keating.......14.2 billion
95-96.....Labor......Keating.......11.1 billion

96-97.....Liberal.....Howard.........6.1 billion
97-98.....Liberal.....Howard.........0.1 billion
98-99.....Liberal.....Howard.........3.9 billion
99-00.....Liberal.....Howard........13.0 billion
00-01.....Liberal.....Howard.........5.9 billion
01-02.....Liberal.....Howard.........1.1 billion
02-03.....Liberal.....Howard.........7.4 billion
03-04.....Liberal.....Howard.........8.0 billion
04-05.....Liberal.....Howard........13.6 billion
05-06.....Liberal.....Howard........15.7 billion
06-07.....Liberal.....Howard........17.2 billion
07-08.....Liberal.....Howard........19.7 billion

08-09.....Labor......Rudd............27.1 billion
09-10.....Labor......Rudd............54.7 billion
10-11.....Labor......Gillard...........47.7 billion
11-12.....Labor......Gillard...........37.1 billion


It doesn't take a genius penny to have a squizz at the table of results and see which political party is able to run a competent show or not.

If you can't see a distinctive pattern, then vote Labor.

It took a full decade of Liberal good work to erase the accumulated debt created by Keating's mess. It's staggerring to think how long it will take to clear up the carnage Swan et al are creating.

** Note...

1. See the dramatic turnaround a change of Govt has on the accounts in 96 and 97. No, it's not all about 'the circumstances'. Deliberate changes to Govt policy have dramatic effects, as can be seen by the swift turnaround from deficits in the tens of billions every year to surplus' every year.

2. Obviously the GFC is still with us, given Labor's deficit this year. Labor keep raving on how they guided Australia through the GFC.......well I dunno, looking at the deficits, it's far worse now than in 08 when apparently it hit.

3. Anyone who believes this Labor Govt can deliver a surplus is in cuckoo land. They simply don't have the competency level to do anything of the sort.

4. I suspect the Liberal Govt might be in power for another 12 years mopping this mess up.

5. People will look back on these figures in years to come and identify this shambles of a Green dictated Govt as the worst in Australia's history.

 

[Aaron_C]

Not making CG during the GFC doesnt make sense. It would make sense if the asset was bought and sold in the GFC period. But I'm sure plenty we're sold during the GFC and bought well before it.

Therefore I think CG revenue change during the GFC to the govt Would be minimal.

Not a bad try tho.

Even if they made a capital gain evand it would be smaller than before due to the price drops. Definitely not a revenue-neutral change to CGT.

 

[Belbo]

No worries penny.....it goes to the heart of whether a party is a competent economic manager of the country's finances or not.

As usual, you've omitted any mention of the recessions, Dazz.

Penny, the underlying cash balance (Dazz's surplus or deficit) tells you which team got the benefit of the previous team's repair work.

Basically, the electorate has installed Labor to manage during recessions in the last 30 years. The reason is political. Since Hawke's Accord in the early 80s, only the Labor side of politics has been able to get the union movements agreement to deliver the wage restraint needed to crush outbreaks of inflation.

Similarly, the electorate has installed the Coalition to manage during growth periods. The reason is economic. Since the rise of Thatcherism in the late 80s, Howard & Co have always promised us the tax cuts we love (instead of infrastructure building) with surpluses. And this is why inflation keeps threatening to come back.

Don't be drawn down by the hype of either side, Penny. It won't make for rational investing or for a stronger country. It'll just make a dull, party-line hack out of you.

 

[dan c]

Even if they made a capital gain evand it would be smaller than before due to the price drops. Definitely not a revenue-neutral change to CGT.

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.

 

[evand]

My thoughts exactly. Labor was in power for 2 massive economic downturns. The early 90s and the 08 GFC. And a couple of minor ones.

Liberal was mostly in power for periods of uninterrupted global growth. The big one was 90s/early 2000s which was built on debt and imploded as the GFC in 08. Labor deals with this stuff and has handled it well.

But my problem is not with liberals financial record,it's the disgusting ethical and humane track record of the Howard era.

An inconvenient (and ignored) truth. But if the mad monk is our Pm next year he'll not have it so easy. Especially with the $11 billion black hole.

As usual, you've omitted any mention of the recessions, Dazz.

Penny, the underlying cash balance (Dazz's surplus or deficit) tells you which team got the benefit of the previous team's repair work.

Basically, the electorate has installed Labor to manage during recessions in the last 30 years. The reason is political. Since Hawke's Accord in the early 80s, only the Labor side of politics has been able to get the union movements agreement to deliver the wage restraint needed to crush outbreaks of inflation.

Similarly, the electorate has installed the Coalition to manage during growth periods. The reason is economic. Since the rise of Thatcherism in the late 80s, Howard & Co have always promised us the tax cuts we love (instead of infrastructure building) with surpluses. And this is why inflation keeps threatening to come back.

Don't be drawn down by the hype of either side, Penny. It won't make for rational investing or for a stronger country. It'll just make a dull, party-line hack out of you.

 

[dan c]

No worries penny.....it goes to the heart of whether a party is a competent economic manager of the country's finances or not.

Let's look at the last 20 years ;

FY.........Govt.......PM.............Surplus / Deficit....REVENUE

91-92.....Labor......Keating.......12.6 billion
92-93.....Labor......Keating.......18.1 billion
93-94.....Labor......Keating.......18.2 billion
94-95.....Labor......Keating.......14.2 billion
95-96.....Labor......Keating.......11.1 billion

96-97.....Liberal.....Howard.........6.1 billion
97-98.....Liberal.....Howard.........0.1 billion
98-99.....Liberal.....Howard.........3.9 billion
99-00.....Liberal.....Howard........13.0 billion
00-01.....Liberal.....Howard.........5.9 billion.....182,996m
01-02.....Liberal.....Howard.........1.1 billion.....187,588
02-03.....Liberal.....Howard.........7.4 billion.....204,613
03-04.....Liberal.....Howard.........8.0 billion.....217,775
04-05.....Liberal.....Howard........13.6 billion.....235,984
05-06.....Liberal.....Howard........15.7 billion.....255,943
06-07.....Liberal.....Howard........17.2 billion.....272,637
07-08.....Liberal.....Howard........19.7 billion.....294,917

08-09.....Labor......Rudd............27.1 billion.....292,600
09-10.....Labor......Rudd............54.7 billion.....284,662
10-11.....Labor......Gillard...........47.7 billion.....302,024
11-12.....Labor......Gillard...........37.1 billion...EST

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 inc $18B Surplus Inc $5B
05-06 Revenue Inc $20B Surplus inc $2B
06-07 Revenue Inc $17B Surplus inc $1.5B
07-08 Revenue inc $22B Surplus inc $2.5B

From 2003, revenue was increasing at a rate of 7 to 9% a year, and expenses were increasing at a similar rate.

The revenue figures also shows the impact of the GFC in 2009 and 2010 FY.

 

[Dazz]

The revenue figures also shows the impact of the GFC in 2009 and 2010 FY.

Dan, Dan, Dan.....

What it shows is the impact of the Labor Govt....not the GFC.

06-07......Revenue 272 billion.....Liberals produce a 17 billion surplus
07-08......Revenue 295 billion.....Liberals produce a 20 billion surplus
08-09......Revenue 293 billion.....Labor produce a 27 billion deficit
09-10......Revenue 285 billion.....Labor produce a 55 billion deficit
10-11......Revenue 302 billion.....Labor produce a 47 billion deficit
11-12......Revenue ??? billion.....Labor on target for a 37 billion deficit


There is no appreciable change in revenue, in fact the trend is distinctly up.


Under Labor, there ain't no surplus anywhere in sight. The confirmed 'black hole" is currently 136 billion and growing daily.


This country deserves better.


So, revenue keeps going up, and the difference when changing Govts was an instantaneous 47 Billion difference, and has continued on that path ever since, with absolutely no sign of abatement.


The figures don't lie Dan, only the interpretation.

 

[dan c]

Dan, Dan, Dan.....

What it shows is the impact of the Labor Govt....not the GFC.

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 levels. There has been a distinct slowing of revenue. Surely you can see that?

 

[evand]

What it shows is the years of deficit coincide with years of recession. That coincide with labor being in power.

And it shows the years of surplus coincide with Howard being in power coincide with the benefits of world wide linear growth. Again, which imploded as the GFC. As that growth was all debt based. As warren buffet says ' you can't tellers whos not wearing swimmers till the tide goes out'

All Convenienty ignored.

Dan, Dan, Dan.....

What it shows is the impact of the Labor Govt....not the GFC.

06-07......Revenue 272 billion.....Liberals produce a 17 billion surplus
07-08......Revenue 295 billion.....Liberals produce a 20 billion surplus
08-09......Revenue 293 billion.....Labor produce a 27 billion deficit
09-10......Revenue 285 billion.....Labor produce a 55 billion deficit
10-11......Revenue 302 billion.....Labor produce a 47 billion deficit
11-12......Revenue ??? billion.....Labor on target for a 37 billion deficit


There is no appreciable change in revenue, in fact the trend is distinctly up.


Under Labor, there ain't no surplus anywhere in sight. The confirmed 'black hole" is currently 136 billion and growing daily.


This country deserves better.


So, revenue keeps going up, and the difference when changing Govts was an instantaneous 47 Billion difference, and has continued on that path ever since, with absolutely no sign of abatement.


The figures don't lie Dan, only the interpretation.

 

[Belbo]

Dan, Dan, Dan.....

What it shows is the impact of the Labor Govt....not the GFC.

So THAT'S why the US is whistling Dixie and Europe's doing the flashdance, eh?

Really! What was it you were saying about the lie of selective interpretation?

Shameless.

 

[Dazz]

Make from the official numbers them what you will. They won't change.

If you can't see a pattern, then so be it.

99% of normal people can see the pattern....it stands out like a sore thumb.

There are multiple reasons why the Labor brand is on the nose. This is the biggest.

 

[Belbo]

You just don’t get it, do you?

The great majority of professional politicians that you are so ardently supporting don’t actually believe any of this rightwing ideological clap-trap you’re spouting. They know it’s all a crock. They’re just running with it because it works on the punters like you to get them the powerful job, the high status and the serious perks.

Sure, there’s a small hard core group around Abbott (which word has it the rest call ‘the DLP’), but they’re just the shock troops. Once the Coalition is in office they’ll go wild for a while and do a whole bunch of societal damage - for which they’ll be dispensed with one by one as always happens - and the pragmatists will slip quietly back into control.

I’m sorry to put a spoiler on your party. But it is better you hear it now than to be heart-broken when it ends so much earlier than you’d been led to believe it would. Think of it as an opportunity to create your own identity.

 

[Dazz]

You just don’t get it, do you?

I get it loud and clear. I can read Govt figures very well. It''s ugly for sure, but I can read the numbers they are publishing.

The numbers aren't right wing....they are simply numbers.

How the Govt hold their head up as they announce these figures is beyond me - only a socialist led Govt could be proud of these massive budget blowouts....with the Greens screaming for more !!!

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Dan, Dan, Dan.....

What it shows is the impact of the Labor Govt....not the GFC.

06-07......Revenue 272 billion.....Liberals produce a 17 billion surplus
07-08......Revenue 295 billion.....Liberals produce a 20 billion surplus
08-09......Revenue 293 billion.....Labor produce a 27 billion deficit
09-10......Revenue 285 billion.....Labor produce a 55 billion deficit
10-11......Revenue 302 billion.....Labor produce a 47 billion deficit
11-12......Revenue ??? billion.....Labor on target for a 37 billion deficit


There is no appreciable change in revenue, in fact the trend is distinctly up.


Under Labor, there ain't no surplus anywhere in sight. The confirmed 'black hole" is currently 136 billion and growing daily.


This country deserves better.


So, revenue keeps going up, and the difference when changing Govts was an instantaneous 47 Billion difference, and has continued on that path ever since, with absolutely no sign of abatement.


The figures don't lie Dan, only the interpretation.

Dazz, you say the trend is 'distinctly up in revenues'. But look at the final year of Liberal revenues - $295 billion. Then Labor's highest revenues - $302 billion. That's a roughly 1.5% increase in three years. That doesn't even cover inflation! So, in real terms, it is actually a decrease in revenues. Just sayin'.

 

[Dazz]

Fair enough chief - call it flat. I'm not going to argue over 272 vs 285 and 295 vs 302. Call it a round 300 if you want.

...but look at the end result....

One is +17, one is +20, then change of Govt and we have four horror numbers ina row { -27, -55, -47 and -37 }.

We are all property investors.

That sum is now attracting 6 billion in interest to service the debt racked up.

That interest bill won't go away until someone pays back the 136 billion we borrowed from overseas.

There is a reason Howard's last couple of years were so large in surplus. They weren't paying any interest cos the debt had been wiped out.

We can all understand that.

 

[Belbo]

Do you really want to know what the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments' real crime has been? It's been that it simply hasn't had the political courage to upset the massive Howard-Costello swill trough of middle-class welfare handouts. As was noted midway through Rudd's term -

Labor is doing virtually nothing about Australia’s huge middle-class welfare system, which sees Centrelink with a staggering 8 million “clients”.

read more

This is where that $136b debt you keep harping on about actually originated. It's the vote-buying legacy of Howard & Costello's last few years when they ran out of ideas but could still milk a major mining boom. If Rudd & Swan had kicked over that trough before the GFC as they should have the country likely wouldn't even know Abbott's first name today!

Yes, we're all investors here, which is why we aren't as easily taken in as your regular mug punters.

 

[TomW]

Fair enough chief - call it flat. I'm not going to argue over 272 vs 285 and 295 vs 302. Call it a round 300 if you want.

...but look at the end result....

One is +17, one is +20, then change of Govt and we have four horror numbers ina row { -27, -55, -47 and -37 }.

We are all property investors.

That sum is now attracting 6 billion in interest to service the debt racked up.

That interest bill won't go away until someone pays back the 136 billion we borrowed from overseas.

There is a reason Howard's last couple of years were so large in surplus. They weren't paying any interest cos the debt had been wiped out.

We can all understand that.

Can we understand basic macroeconomics?

You don't think with the economy slowing down post GFC and output was falling (along with interest rates and inflation) the treasury was telling the Government to run deficits to partially replace the lost output so the economy didn't stall?

 

[Aaron_C]

Do you really want to know what the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments' real crime has been? It's been that it simply hasn't had the political courage to upset the massive Howard-Costello swill trough of middle-class welfare handouts.

...and Rudd's $900 handout to everyone was considered a tax rather than a handout?

 

[Belbo]

...and Rudd's $900 handout to everyone was considered a tax rather than a handout?

No, it was urgent and very effective stimulus delivered at precisely the right moment. But in truth it wasn't Rudd's idea. We have then head of Treasury, Ken Henry, to thank for that. His words of advice to Rudd are legendary: "Go hard. Go early. Go households!" (By the way, there was another Rudd handout of about $ 1,100 before that $ 900 too as I recall.)

This necessary GFC stimulus contrasts completely with the irresponsible stimulus of middle-class welfare handouts of Howard & Costello's last few years, which back then forced the RBA to push interest rates to around 8.5% (was it?) to try to cool the economy down. We investors paid through the nose then, as we're sure to pay through the nose again under Abbott.