Any hits to investors? Tax cuts would hurt. It's a big role in my strategy for the year
So, what do you think might be in store for this years budget?
- Thread starter investor2009
- Start date
I like how people say this, it's like a child that drops it's ice cream on the floor boo hoo.
The reality is they can't know the full extent of where things are at until they are in power. We have a large growing debt. Something has to be done to pay back that debt. The government does not have one cent to it's name without us giving it to them so the only option is to raise taxes.
It's not popular politics but they are doing what has to be done. Look at it this way, to avoid a recession Rudd gave everyone $1000. Now that times are a little better Abbott is taking that $1000 back.
The cupboard is bare routine has been used by Hawke in '83, Howard in '96, and now it seems it might be Abbott's turn in '14 to walk away from some of his more inconvenient promises. I guess the difference this time is Abbott got drilled by reporters on whether he would re-consider his 'promises' and use the bad budget position as an excuse to walk away from them, and he rebuffed them.
Promises aside, instead of a debt tax I'd prefer to see either some of the concessions to super wound back and/or eligibility for the pension tightened for those sitting on significant assets. I also wouldn't mind seeing Family Tax Benefit being tightened so only folks who are at the bottom of the pile (i.e family incomes of sub-50k) receiving it.
We have a large growing debt?!
Yet.... We spend 12 Billion on aircraft that the US has stated are flawed!
I am a liberal through and through, however; this war on the lower class concerns me.
The lack of compassion show by our leaders is mind blowing! They tell us its time to cut the fat rah rah rah. Yet are they cutting their own pensions, are they self funded retires? What about entitlements?
What is next the privatisation of Medicare for the greater good of Australia
Yet.... We spend 12 Billion on aircraft that the US has stated are flawed!
I am a liberal through and through, however; this war on the lower class concerns me.
The lack of compassion show by our leaders is mind blowing! They tell us its time to cut the fat rah rah rah. Yet are they cutting their own pensions, are they self funded retires? What about entitlements?
What is next the privatisation of Medicare for the greater good of Australia
A debt tax - not happy!
Id be ok with it. Australians have to learn that we cant keep demanding things like spoilt children.
The economical system is circular. Give and receive.
Ouch! A levy like that would hurt.
Not sure it's speculation. These things tend to be floated in the weeks heading into the budget, so that the impact on budget night is lessened.
It breaks the 'no new taxes' promise, which was always going to be broken.
It also breaks the 'no surprises government' pledge.
They are also looking at scrapping FTB Part B, which screams of rank hypocrisy. Howard introduced it un means tested and Abbott howled when a Labor introduced a cap.
Now Tony has had a change of heart and wants to scrap it altogether.
Rubbish, it's a fantasy that's trotted out by successive governments. The treasury, not the elected members produce forecasts and those forecasts only change with changing policy's or changes in economic conditions.
The libs materially knew the situation yet still promised to reduce the deficit without material changes to taxes or spending.
As long as Abbott doesn't take that $1000 back in one go then it's the correct thing to do. It's prudent for a country to run deficits at some points in the economic cycle and surpluses at others. Reducing the deficit too quickly will result in recession.
I would love to see Family Tax Benefit Part A entitlements reduced and Part B scrapped altogether. It's absolutely ridiculous that a family with a stay-at-home parent can have the other parent earning up to $150 000 (or more depending on how many children?) and still receive a hand-out. Yet families with two working parents have that benefit cut as soon as the lower income earner makes around $20 000. 
I know that I work with many women (in particular) who knock back extra hours at work when we are desperately understaffed because they 'still want to be entitled to some part B money' as opposed to actually working for it. Others have come in looking for work and stress that they 'only want a few hours of work per week so as to not lose FTB B payments'. It needs to change!
Also wouldn't mind seeing full-pensioners with their hands out to Centrelink and very expensive PPORs have to undergo more stringent asset testing to qualify.
I know that I work with many women (in particular) who knock back extra hours at work when we are desperately understaffed because they 'still want to be entitled to some part B money' as opposed to actually working for it. Others have come in looking for work and stress that they 'only want a few hours of work per week so as to not lose FTB B payments'. It needs to change!Also wouldn't mind seeing full-pensioners with their hands out to Centrelink and very expensive PPORs have to undergo more stringent asset testing to qualify.
Hawke in '83....fair call....the whole country gave Fraser a deserved boot.
Howard in '96....absolutely, Keating not only left the cupboard bare but the door was off it's hinges.
Abbott in '13.....Rudd and Gillard emptied the cupboard, ripped off the door, smashed the shelf and burnt down the house and half the street. Cupboard - what cupboard ??
I noticed you've conveniently forgotten to include Rudd in '07.....when he was handed by Howard and Costello not a cupboard but an upgraded vault, with $ 22 Billion in cash merrily earning at 5% over 1 Billion in interest for the country, with no debt to service.
Doesn't really fit with your argument. Can understand why you left it off your list.
As with most things, there is of course 2 sides to the story....
But I know that doesn't fit with the line that the Liberal party promotes....
This article, which btw, readily concedes the (many) failings of the Rudd/Gillard government (I, for one, am not disputing that) does also point out a few mitigating factors....
Economic Comparisons Useless Without Context.
Drawing a simple comparison between the economic performance of the current Labor Government and that of the Howard government is like making direct comparisons between Libby Trickett's 100m freestyle time with that of Sally Pearson in the 100m hurdles.
Assessing sporting scores, like debts and deficits, needs context. Peter Costello gloats about his debt-defying years as treasurer, knowing that among his biggest challenges in office during the pre-GFC world was deciding how to spend the tide of (mainly resources) company tax revenues that swamped his 12 budgets.
Specifically not wanting to run mammoth surpluses drove Australia's longest-serving treasurer to set up the Future Fund which finally allocated money to the previously unfunded superannuation entitlements of public servants. For the Coalition to claim that Labor has been "spending like a drunken sailor" doesn't tell the full story.
As a proportion of GDP, between 1996 and 2007, government spending averaged 24.2 per cent. The stimulus spending of 2009/2010 pushed spending up to 26 per cent of GDP but since then it's been contained at 24 per cent. All things being equal, if Wayne Swan had the revenue today that Peter Costello had in the 2000s, the 2012/13 budget would be in surplus.
By 2007, the $96 billion in debt the Howard government had inherited in 1996 was entirely paid down and the budget was in surplus to the tune of $20 billion. Mr Costello managed this impressive turn around despite a cash splash on families, pensioners, new babies and first-home buyers as well as income tax cuts over eight successive years. In all the noise about who can claim the record as the most generous treasurer, the IMF shows the prize must indeed go to Peter Costello.
In a recent study of 55 leading economies around the world, The International Monetary Fund identified four periods in Australian history when governments were engaged in "fiscal profligacy": they were in 1940, 1960 and between 2003 and 2007.
That's not to excuse the spending patterns of the Labor Government. Five and a half years since Howard and Costello were voted out, Labor has spent all of the $20 billion surplus it was gifted plus another $20 billion or so. On a strict dollar-for-dollar measure, Labor's economic management credentials could hardly be described as world class. But so much of what's been affecting the revenue side of the ledger has been outside the control of prime ministers and treasurers on both the upside and the downside.
*** more in the article ***
For the record, "profligacy" can be defined as -
Recklessly wasteful; wildly extravagant
See: Profligacy @ thefreedictionary.com
I guess once Howard and Costello sold all the family silver ($70 odd bn in asset sales) & they had money coming out of the wazoo because of the mining and real estate boom, they had a little spend didn't they?
Hey.... not me saying it... The IMF is.
See also - Howard the King of the Loose Purse Strings
They say that so they don't have to take the blame. I'm sure they'd be thanking the Labor Party rather than taking the credit themselves if it was a positive situation. You can't have it both ways.
This country is going further down the toilet with every passing year. We pay the same rate of tax as many European nations but get about a tenth of the infrastructure and services. What a scam
