# Federal Budget 2009 highlights



## kincella (12 May 2009)

Thought it may be appropriate to get a thread started so we can all comment on what changes are made and how it will affect each of us....regardless of all the so called leaked information....there is usually some really bad stuff in there that has not been leaked...
cheers


----------



## kincella (12 May 2009)

PS I rarely watch the speech on TV...I prefer to read the details myself..from the news or direct from that office....and tonight it will save me from hearing the same words constantly repeated as if we are all stupid or deaf or both...., and I will not have to listen to the blame game...blaming the liberals for everything......at least Costello was straight and to the point....and Tanners head nodding turns me off


----------



## robots (12 May 2009)

hello,

Pensioners getting $32.49 per week extra from September

thankyou
associate professor robots


----------



## moXJO (12 May 2009)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> Pensioners getting $32.49 per week extra from September
> 
> ...




I thought I heard they are taking the $750 away at the start of the year. Something else about additional earnings having a lower cut off rate. 

Its the devil in the detail that you need to wait for.


----------



## investorpaul (12 May 2009)

What a non event!!!

Not too much pain, that budget is all about ensuring political survival.

The 4.5% REAL GDP growth forecasts for the year after next are rediculous, way too optimistic.

Keeping the FHB grant for another 3 months, before tapering it off is also daft and just aimed at buying votes.


----------



## kincella (12 May 2009)

what the....so far....seen the highlights only ....unbelievable....whats changed really....???? looks like a very friendly voter budget.....the climax...
sorry but I am dissapointed....guess I will have to wait until tomorrow to get the full reports
what negative gearing not removed....200,000 jobs provided ...where ?
hehehehe.......scaredy cats
ps I really like little wombats, so cute and so much damage...but just watch a baby one having its tummy rubbed...brilliant


----------



## bluelabel (12 May 2009)

I wouldn't have titled the thread highlights Kincella.  I agree with investorpaul.  A bit of a non event.  There is not much to get excited about unless you are a pensioner or on a road construction crew.

And whats the use in raising the pension age to 67 in 2023?? where did they pull this year from?  Going by the sounds some of the opposition made when announced it come from some where uncomfortable...

Another thing that stood out is the revenue write down of $210bn.  Dang thats a lot of moula to not be getting.  It is a good little deflector from the fact that weare going to be paying through the nose for this budget for many years to come.  The budget may be back in the black by 2013, but the big question that hasn't been answered is when will this debt be paid off?

:bier:

blue


----------



## bluelabel (12 May 2009)

kincella said:


> looks like a very friendly voter budget.....




You got it in one Kincella.  Kevin and Wayne are playing to the masses, exactly like throwing $900 to most people. Buying votes.  I feel it is a very conservitative budget. 

Joe Hockey is on the ABC now spruiking reckless spending.  I agree, the $900 should have been pocketed and spent in the budget.  

:bier:

blue


----------



## bluelabel (12 May 2009)

Link to Wayne Swans Speech here

:bier:

blue


----------



## Bill M (12 May 2009)

bluelabel said:


> And whats the use in raising the pension age to 67 in 2023?? where did they pull this year from?  Going by the sounds some of the opposition made when announced it come from some where uncomfortable...




They pulled that year because anyone who will be pension age in the next couple years or so would be so much against it. Imagine if they made this law next year, the people who were banking on their pension would vote against them. What a load of cr@p, the Government just want people to die on the job, lousy b@stards.


----------



## Bill M (12 May 2009)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> Pensioners getting $32.49 per week extra from September
> 
> ...




And about time our oldies got a rise after all the work they put in during their lives, I applaud this increase.


----------



## kincella (12 May 2009)

Blue...I was geared up by the media and spruiking to expect something...anything...hence the thread title....
sorry the actual reality......its so boring....
and the dog agrees......she think winners are grinners...or vice versa....grinners are winners


----------



## Bill M (12 May 2009)

How it affects me:

1. Now we MUST wait until 67 to get a Pension

2. Superannuation co contribution has dropped to $1,000 down from $1,500

Nothing else directly affects us.


----------



## -Bevo- (12 May 2009)

investorpaul said:


> The 4.5% REAL GDP growth forecasts for the year after next are rediculous, way too optimistic.




Yeah I nearly choked on my coffee when I heard that one.


----------



## robots (12 May 2009)

Bill M said:


> And about time our oldies got a rise after all the work they put in during their lives, I applaud this increase.




hello,

they should be getting 3 x $32.49 i reckon Bill M for the reasons you highlighted

that would put them up around $350/wk/person, getting there

thankyou
associate professor robots


----------



## carmen (12 May 2009)

Explains the fall in BHP & RIO the past 2 days despite climbs amongst mining juniors. Is there a thread that lists mining companies with deposits/permits to explore areas to have boosted infrastructure? Only to add speculation to the fire.


----------



## Judd (12 May 2009)

Now this is very sneaky.  Tax Review recommendations released today.

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/Content/Content.aspx?doc=html/media_releases/05.htm



> *Tax Review report on the retirement income system*
> 
> The Government has today released the report prepared by the Australia’s Future Tax System Review Panel into the retirement income system. The report presents the Panel’s broad strategic views on the retirement income system.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrBurns (12 May 2009)

Extend the FHBG boost for another 3 months, watch the prices bubble further out of control, this Govt is toxic.


----------



## bluelabel (12 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Extend the FHBG boost for another 3 months, watch the prices bubble further out of control, this Govt is toxic.




The boost has been reduced though to $3500.  Total FHOG will be $10500 commencing in september.  Although i would have liked to see the boost abolished just to watch the market fizzle.  Now that would have been a great budget night...

:bier:

blue


----------



## Julia (12 May 2009)

As expected, we had all the hype about what a tough Budget it would be, filling the electorate with fear, then it turns out to be (as already observed) pretty much a non event, so we are now supposed to all breathe  a collective sigh of relief and feel oh so grateful to our benevolent rulers.

Chris Richardson of Access Economics described it as a "powder puff budget".

So again we have the simple reality of pure politics - the hype and spin continues, but the bottom line is that they will always protect their re-election chances.

There should be a basic lecture in high schools which informs students never to labour under the naive belief that governments of any persuasion function with the benefit of the country in mind.


----------



## Calliope (12 May 2009)

investorpaul said:


> What a non event!!!
> 
> Not too much pain, that budget is all about ensuring political survival.
> 
> ...




My thoughts exactly. All this talk about a tough budget. It's about as tough as marshmallow. Its all about keeping the masses happy and spend,spend  spend. One group they have ignored, and that is the unemployed. 

Even with all the jobs they talk of creating, a million unemployed come next election, getting a below subsistence dole, will be a force to be reckoned with.  But of course they have another budget before that to make unfunded handouts.


----------



## sting (12 May 2009)

Please correct me if im wrong, but I noticed the single pensioner increase is just over $30 a week but if your in a couple the increase is only $10 per week combined or only $5 a week ea. I wonder what the percentages are single as opposed to couples. 

With all the other changes to pensions ie the raising of the rate from 40cents in the dollar to 50 cents in the dollar that the pension reduces if you earn more han $138/fortnite for those working part time it wouldnt take much for pensioner couples where one of them works part time to be worse off ie if you earnt more than $119 a week you will be worse off.

Therefore I can see part time workes recieving a pension will be cutting back hrs as to not be worse off.

UBIQUE


----------



## JTLP (12 May 2009)

Classic...absolute classic.

Too much anger to even think about writing. Where the hell did they pluck these jokers? It is seriously like Australian Idol or something of that ilk...pure popularity contest.

My only prayer is that my boys in blue will block half the idiotic spending from this Labor government, force Rudd into a 2010 election and the Australian public wakes up and smells the increased taxes, oops reckless spending, oops popularity contest...oops i mean roses 

Sadly, it will never happen. The working class are all too happy with the big $900 from Kruddy (who i'd bet my life savings many think he plucked from his own back pocket...ermmm) and continue to live in ignorant bliss. This smug man and his uneducated, whimsical crew will be the bane of Australia for a very long time, even after they're gone.

Somebody please start a working and living overseas thread...complete with experiences etc.

Sigh...


----------



## Julia (12 May 2009)

sting said:


> Please correct me if im wrong, but I noticed the single pensioner increase is just over $30 a week but if your in a couple the increase is only $10 per week combined or only $5 a week ea. I wonder what the percentages are single as opposed to couples.



That's right, Sting.  Even with that greater increase to single pensioners, the two payments are still inequitable.  Consider that a single pensioner still has to pay the same rates, insurances, and almost the same electricity, water etc as a couple out of a benefit which is much lower than the couple benefit.
Ditto if they are paying rent.  How can a single pensioner, with new rate of around $630 p/f manage to pay rent of around $250 p.w., electricity, insurance, rego, petrol, food, medical expenses etc.  I don't know how they do it.



> With all the other changes to pensions ie the raising of the rate from 40cents in the dollar to 50 cents in the dollar that the pension reduces if you earn more han $138/fortnite for those working part time it wouldnt take much for pensioner couples where one of them works part time to be worse off ie if you earnt more than $119 a week you will be worse off.
> 
> Therefore I can see part time workes recieving a pension will be cutting back hrs as to not be worse off.
> 
> UBIQUE



Yep.  How stupid is this.


----------



## ozewolf (12 May 2009)

kincella said:


> Thought it may be appropriate to get a thread started so we can all comment on what changes are made and how it will affect each of us....regardless of all the so called leaked information....there is usually some really bad stuff in there that has not been leaked...
> cheers




We need to wake up and relook at the way we live, spend and at this moment create a future that will benefit mankind longterm....meaning that a new world economy is way overdue...
If we continue on produces nothing but the same in every aspect that we are currently in or worse (more likely)...


----------



## gelatii (12 May 2009)

Where's Rudd hiding tonight?


----------



## bandicoot76 (12 May 2009)

wheres kruddy hiding tonight? probly beijing with all his mates


----------



## nikemi (13 May 2009)

Here is a good one from the Business Spectator. I was wonderting whether the advertised 25 bilion to be spent on infrastracture is going to take forever, obviously it will. of course it is much easier and requires less time to spend 10 bil on cash hand outs...

"The Treasurer grandly describes it as the third phase of fiscal stimulus, and the headline number is an impressive $22 billion, as in (from Wayne Swan’s speech): “The centrepiece of this Budget is the $22 billion we are investing in the infrastructure our nation needs to grow and prosper in the years ahead.”

Actually, as discussed elsewhere, the centrepiece of the budget is a debt-funded increase in the old age pension.

As for infrastructure, I can only count $1 billion in the budget measures for next year, after which, according to the government’s forecasts, the recession will be over and stimulus will no longer be needed.

Moreover, in describing the infrastructure investments, the budget papers frequently use the words “essential” and “urgent”.

In other words, not only will these things take a long time, but they are not optional – they are needed not so much that our nation can grow and prosper, but simply so our nation can function. 

The components of the $22 billion are listed in Budget Statement no.1, and each item represents the total investment required for each project by the time it is finished. There is $8.4 billion on roads, rail and ports, $3.5 billion on clean energy, $2.6 billion on education, $3.2 billion on hospitals and the old $4.7 billion investment in the National Broadband Network. Total: $22.4 billion.

But don’t look for those amounts in the actual budget expense measures. The clean energy initiative, for example, is in at a round number of $300 million a year; hospital infrastructure is in for $383 million next year and $273 million the year after; metro rail is down for $196 million next year and Network 1, the inland rail freight corridor, is down for just $75 million, after $742 million in the current year.

I managed to track down $53.2 million set aside for the National Broadband Network in 2009-10, for “implementation and establishment”. The Department of Finance is also getting $1.1 million to set up the NBN company since its minister will be the shareholder.

How the rest of the projects were chosen is a little hard to fathom. The Infrastructure Australia report accompanying the budget papers is very glossy and printed on expensive paper, but the projects are not listed in order of recommended priority.

They are grouped under seven headings: NBN, national energy market, competitive gateways (ie ports), national freight network, transforming our cities, indigenous infrastructure and water.

The third, fourth and fifth of those categories (ports, freight and cities) contain eight to 10 projects each, listed in alphabetical order – a total of 29 projects. In the second half of the brochure, however, there are 38 projects listed across those three categories, also in alphabetical order.

This was done, presumably, to allow the government to pick the best projects for political purposes, rather than having to follow some set of externally recommended priorities, God forbid. This is politics, not economics, after all.

Of the 38 rail, road and port projects listed – alphabetically – by Infrastructure Australia, the government has picked 15, ranging in size from $20 million to $3.2 billion.

And the winner is…Melbourne! It gets $3.2 billion for the Regional Rail Express project, which is the proposed new rail link between West Werribee and South Kensington.

But then, Melbourne’s rail project is chicken feed compared to Brisbane’s and Sydney’s, which are listed in the Infrastructure Australia document at $14 billion and $13.1 billion respectively. Far too expensive.

Wayne Swan’s $22 billion includes $20 million for a feasibility study into the Brisbane project, but nothing for Sydney, although it gets $1.4 billion for the Hunter expressway, the second biggest on the list.

All of which is the “third phase of stimulus”, and it should help us get out of the next recession, but not this one. "


----------



## nikemi (13 May 2009)

Also what I dont understand is how the leaked 'tough' part of the budget has gone missing but the deficit part is here to stay....


----------



## Trevor_S (13 May 2009)

investorpaul said:


> Not too much pain




Pardon ? The unprecedented debt bill is HUGE,  it's making my eyes water...  largest % debt of GDP ever... WE will have to pay it...



sting said:


> Therefore I can see part time workes recieving a pension will be cutting back hrs as to not be worse off.




The entire Australian welfare system provides disincentives to work.  It's design is ar_se backwards.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...p/theaustralian/comments/welfare_parent_trap/



> Concern that the welfare system discourages work has engaged a new consensus on the issue that includes Treasury secretary Ken Henry.


----------



## kincella (13 May 2009)

so its all froth and bubble and spin....
no gutz no glory...oh and the infrastructure money was the old one from last year...it was allocated last year...and of course nothing done...
they spent double that amount throwing around 900 cash to....whatever
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
what happened to the new rail from Melb to Brissy???? no money there for that one....

 no new increased tax on liquor or ciggys  what the...

the biggest losers ar single mothers and the unemployed....how are they any different from pensioners or disabled people...who will receive 336pw...or a couple 500pw...and unemployed and single mums 200pw....
pension is supposed to provide just the basic costs....is it cheaper to live if you are unemployed...compared to the same age person disabled ???? a difference of about 136 extra to one but not the other....

pensioners earning salary will have 500 pf discounted from the other rules...favouring people working versus the investor...how un australian...when unemployment is tipped to go higher

the only good thing is that investment allowance is 50% until Dec 09...assuming it passes legislation....so buy a car, pc and assets and claim 50% deduction in the first year only....wow buy a new car and write off 50%

negative gearing...for those earning over 250.000 only will be affected....
Taxpayers with an income of more than $250,000 a year will have tax deductions from unprofitable business activities "quarantined to the business activity", Budget papers say. Under existing rules, all losses from business ventures, such as farming or property development, can be claimed against income tax.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 May 2009)

**IMPORTANT FLASHBACK**  

This will give you all a good laugh now we have something in writing to compare with last year's Budget speech.

There are just so many laughably incongruous, hypocritical and just plain contradictory comments made by Swannie Baby in last year's Budget speech when one considers the CURRENT Budget speech and CURRENT state of the world and local economy that I won't even bother try to comment on them all - highlights will have to do!  



> BUDGET SPEECH 2008-09 DELIVERED ON 13 MAY 2008 ON THE SECOND READING
> OF THE APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2008-09 BY THE HONOURABLE WAYNE SWAN MP
> TREASURER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
> 
> ...




OMG 

Was that really Swannie Baby's "accurate" read on the future direction of our economy - only 1 lousy year ago? His 2008 Budget speech boast of _"disciplined spending, with the lowest real increase in Government spending in nearly a decade; spending growth which is one quarter of the average of the previous four years of responsible spending"_ strikes me as a tad ludicrous in the face of the gummint's recent and now ongoing Mega Spending Spree. 

Quick! Someone slap me with a wet fish - I need to wake up to today's reality! 

Crikey! How can ANYONE honestly, truly believe what KruddSwan Ltd have NOW forecast (hand on heart) will be the direction and prosperity for the next few years for our rapidly en-feebled economy? Oh, I see. Unlike last year, this time their flashy crystal balls are actually working and they can see and forecast the future with great precision!

Sheesh! It is all a *total fantasy made up of very rubbery figures* -  which pre-suppose that there will be no further significant *shocks* or variations to world economies or finance markets? Why is there no REAL safety allowance made for any near-future "worst case scenarios" where, say, another "unforeseen" man-made or natural calamity crunches the world financial markets?

IMO we are being set up for the Mother Of All Debts if something DOES go *bust* in the world economic recovery cycle before their fantasy predicted MegaSurpluses arrive in the meantime. 

Meh. What would I know....

Chiz,


aj

PS: **S A V E** is a four letter word....


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2009)

Well I pretty much give up now, no point stressing over Priscilla Queen of Canberra and her partner Forrest Gump's handling of the economy.

Lower end housing bubbled to the max and going higher, and debt stretching beyond the horizon while these simpletons run us into the ground.

Time will sort it out but we will all pay for this one way or the other in the next 5 years and beyond, I only hope the AU electorate wake up before the next election, but this creep is so slippery he will have already worked out how to bribe votes just before the next election, you can be sure of that.


----------



## Calliope (13 May 2009)

I like Jennifer Hewett's description of Wayne as Pollyanna Swan.

Certainly he was optimistic last night at the despatch box with all his mates around him saying "hear hear".

It was a little different later with a little bit of hard questioning. When he is uncomfortable, as he always is when asked questions, and he has to come up with porkies, his head and shoulders start jerking around. The body language says it all.


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I like Jennifer Hewett's description of Wayne as Pollyanna Swan.
> 
> Certainly he was optimistic last night at the despatch box with all his mates around him saying "hear hear".
> 
> It was a little different later with a little bit of hard questioning. When he is uncomfortable, as he always is when asked questions, and he has to come up with porkies, his head and shoulders start jerking around. The body language says it all.




He's just not very smart, end of story, the exact person we don't need as treasurer at this point in time.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> He's just not very smart, end of story, the exact person we don't need as treasurer at this point in time.






> *FEDERAL Treasurer Wayne Swan has defended the growth forecasts in his second Budget, describing suggestions they are too optimistic as "silly".*



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25472878-5005961,00.html

Doh!

I'm sorry Mr expert Treasurer, sir, I apologise for being silly sir.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 May 2009)

> *The Government's strategy of nation building for an economic recovery, outlined in the federal budget, may not be enough to lift Australia out of debt in the medium term, National Australia Bank chief economist Alan Oster says.*



http://business.theage.com.au/business/no-exit-strategy-for-deficits-nab-20090513-b2h2.html

Clearly, this deluded man is "silly" too, Mr Treasurer, sir.


----------



## metric (13 May 2009)

can anyone tell meWHO we are borrowing all this money from?



.


----------



## glads262 (13 May 2009)

What a letdown. Not many tough decisions made here...

Where are all the spending cuts for 2010/11 when we are emergin from the recession at 4.5% growth?? Oh, thats right, election year.

Funny, the 22billion URGENT infrastructure doesn't really kick in until 2010/11 too.
And the maternity pay
and the solar spending
nor the CPRS

Also, have a look at the forecasts.
-.5% growth next year? I think not. with all of this stimulus, plus record low interest rates? 
That would probably equate to something like...
July-sept -.75%
oct-dec -.25%
jan-mar 0%
apr-jun .5%

Do they really think we're going to contract by 1% odd by the end of the year? With all this stimulus? Plus, China perhaps being close to back on track? And the US flatlining instead of collapsing?

One forecast in particular. Residential investment next financial year - 0% growth?? After dropping 10% last year?? With $21000 bribe?? with a 5% increase in lending last month? With a housing shortage of 50000 homes per year??

I can see the govt, right before the next election, coming out and saying
"look at our good economic management. The deficit was going to be $58 billion, but turns out its only going to be $20 billion because of our stimulus etc etc etc" when really the turnaround will be due to incorrect assumptions, and a quicker turnaround than expected due PRIMARILY to low interest rates NOT goverment handouts that were saved (no effect on economy).

OMG OMG OMG OMG

Get a goddamn clue.


----------



## metric (13 May 2009)

metric said:


> can anyone tell meWHO we are borrowing all this money from?
> 
> 
> 
> .





doesnt anyone know?


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2009)

metric said:


> doesnt anyone know?




I know who will be paying it back, you , me, and our kids.


----------



## metric (13 May 2009)

so if i dont know....mr burns doesnt know, google doesnt know...and no one else here knows....i wonder...

i wonder if this is tainted bailout money we aregetting, and some filthy banker is about to get interest from, after stealing it from american citizens?



.


----------



## metric (13 May 2009)

and after speaking to a treasury spokesperson.....they dont know.

how convenient...



.


----------



## Prospector (13 May 2009)

I am betting, China and the World Bank.


----------



## Basilica (13 May 2009)

bluelabel said:


> And whats the use in raising the pension age to 67 in 2023?? where did they pull this year from?
> [/COLOR]




I think the year is chosen so that it affects Gen X and Gen Y and not the Baby Boomers whose voting numbers are too important to risk.
It catches me in the trap, I will say St*ff you Rudd every working morning of my lost 2 years of retirement.


----------



## Calliope (13 May 2009)

metric said:


> doesnt anyone know?




You will have to put that question on notice. Nobody has ever asked it before. As no country has any spare cash to lend us, except perhaps China, maybe we just ratchet up the printing presses at the mint.


----------



## Prospector (13 May 2009)

Basilica said:


> I think the year is chosen so that it affects Gen X and Gen Y and not the Baby Boomers whose voting numbers are too important to risk.
> It catches me in the trap, I will say St*ff you Rudd every working morning of my lost 2 years of retirement.




When it suits them, I am a baby boomer.  When it doesnt suit them, I am not.  Apparently this targets everyone born after 1952.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I know who will be paying it back, you , me, and our kids.




Mr Burns - silly.


----------



## Calliope (13 May 2009)

Basilica said:


> I think the year is chosen so that it affects Gen X and Gen Y and not the Baby Boomers whose voting numbers are too important to risk.
> It catches me in the trap, I will say St*ff you Rudd every working morning of my lost 2 years of retirement.




I will give you a tip. Fund your own retirement and avoid the trap.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> I am betting, China and the World Bank.




Prospector - silly.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> You will have to put that question on notice. Nobody has ever asked it before. As no country has any spare cash to lend us, except perhaps China, maybe we just ratchet up the printing presses at the mint.




Calliope - silly.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 May 2009)

Ooops.

Silly me.


----------



## Happy (13 May 2009)

bluelabel said:


> The budget may be back in the black by 2013, but the big question that hasn't been answered is when will this debt be paid off?
> 
> blue




Exactly? 
But if they give power back to Liberals, it will not be their problem, right?


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 May 2009)

Well, the ASX didn't like the Budget and tanked up till mid-day today.

Then KRuddSwan Ltd must have got onto their big bwanker mates and pleaded with 'em to buy up stocks big time this arvo to "support the Budget".

You know it makes sense....


----------



## bandicoot76 (13 May 2009)

the way he's been over there smoking pole lately i would hazard a guess that we are knee deep in debt to china and its rising quickly!


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 May 2009)

Let's play a fun game where we place bets on when you think KRuddSwan Pty Ltd will be "forced" by "unexpected worsening news from the world economy" to "downwardly revise" their uber-optimistic Budget economic forecast.

I bet by end of May 2009.

Anyone game enough to raise that bet??


----------



## Green08 (14 May 2009)

There is alot of scope there AJ by next week


----------



## Gillie (14 May 2009)

mmmmnnn..... global socialist economic tide? China takes on the debt, stalls commodity prices by stockpiling, buying into major commodity producers.....

Sounds like a takeover


----------



## Soft Dough (14 May 2009)

Aussiejeff;434870[/HTML said:
			
		

> I bet by end of May 2009.




lol

I bet that it will be the first year of 4.5% growth.


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2009)

I think the only way out of this mess is for Rudd to firmly tell the Chinese that instead of trying to buy the good bits, they have to make an offer for the whole county. 

As there will be no other bidders we probably will have to take their first offer, but you never know... after paying off our huge credit card we might make a 4.5% profit.


----------



## disarray (14 May 2009)

china is financing our budget to the tune of $500 million a day. even buffet said countries like australia risk losing sovereignty by being bought out by foreign interests.

our government is rubbish. it has been for a long long time now.


----------



## MrBurns (14 May 2009)

I just dont dislike Rudd, I hate the little ear wax eating pricks guts.......there that feels a bit better.


----------



## MrBurns (14 May 2009)

Turnbull is doing really well, making Rudd look like an idiot.


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

metric said:


> can anyone tell meWHO we are borrowing all this money from?
> 
> 
> 
> .



As obviously none of us knew the answer to this, I sent an email to "Money Morning" with the question.  Their response today is as follows:



> But for today an apt dose of reader mail:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stan 101 (14 May 2009)

One positive on this budget is the upgrading of the Bruce Highway from Sarina north to Cairns. Having to drive it at least once a month from Cairns to Mackay gives one a chance to have a faith in their god. The road south of the Hinchinbrook range to Ingham is a deathtrap as is the section north of Babinda and the road souht of Ayr.

This road is so poor that I prefer to ride a motorcycle south as opposed to a car to avoid the 30cm continuous  "divits" in the #1 highway on the eastern seaboard. 
Having B Double trucks being forced into the opposing lanes due to poor road condition is just a basic road skill one must learn to avoid on this part of the Bruce highway. 

I fail to recall the previous government allocating funds for major upgrades in this area.


cheers,


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2009)

Julia said:


> As obviously none of us knew the answer to this, I sent an email to "Money Morning" with the question.  Their response today is as follows:




Julia, that is a frightening scenario. But I would hate Turnbull's task of convincing the demographic group that prop up Rudd's popularity that he is really Australia's biggest danger. He aims to ruin the country and then shoot through to the top job at the UN.


----------



## Trevor_S (14 May 2009)

Julia said:


> As obviously none of us knew the answer to this, I sent an email to "Money Morning" with the question.  Their response today is as follows:




What the hell ? they didn't actually answer your question and waffled on for pages (albeit an interesting treatise none the less), are they politicians  ?  Surely it's a one liner ie X, X and X...


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> What the hell ? they didn't actually answer your question and waffled on for pages (albeit an interesting treatise none the less), are they politicians  ?  Surely it's a one liner ie X, X and X...



Yep, they lost me about half way through.  What I gathered before my eyes glazed over, though, was that considerable funds are raised via government bonds.
You could email them and express your objections?  At least I attempted to find the answer.  Sent the same question to "Business Spectator" from whom no reply has been received as yet.


----------



## disarray (14 May 2009)

and who is buying the bonds ...... ?

you do special deal for iron ore with us yes?


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

Entirely likely.  But your ordinary Aussie investor is also going to buy them I suppose.


----------



## Bill M (15 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Entirely likely.  But your ordinary Aussie investor is also going to buy them I suppose.




Hi Julia, yeah that article certainly doesn't say where the money is being loaned from. I was a bit disappointed about not seeing the much touted "Inflation Linked Government Bonds" come out. We would have took those on if the rates were enticing enough.

What I don't understand is why a lot of Aussie companies borrow from US institutional investors and not from the Aussie Public and Superannuation funds. Classic example is the APA Group. They just organised a loan from the US at 565 basis points above the treasury rate. This would mean that they would have to pay between 8 and 9% for this loan. Why wouldn't they just issue bonds locally for 6 or 7%? Doesn't make sense to me. We are starved here of decent bond issues. Look at Tabcorp and the AMP Bonds, well up from issue price and they basically raised as much as they wanted.


----------



## metric (15 May 2009)

well done julia. thank you. pity mainstream didnt commit as much time to this as andrew johns....."morality play..". but that is why morality plays are printed. distract the sheep..




.


----------



## aleckara (15 May 2009)

Hope my reply isn't too big either Julia.

they did answer it kind of. He mentioned presentations in Dubai and articles have mentioned China and Japan. And he mentioned a side effect not known to a lot of people - foreign debt is what keeps our dollar high in the short term and makes our exports less attractive making the issue of paying down foreign debt worse.

Australian's as a whole don't really save much cash. Our historical saving rates are abysmal yet we are the happy consumerist society. Where do you think all the money comes from? Well if Australia isn't saving Aussie dollars foreigners must be. The basics of current accounts are simple - if you as a country spend more than you earn, you have to borrow the difference. If you can't borrow to make the difference in theory the local dollar should adjust downwards until imports are no longer affordable and you are spending as much as you earn. In a country with no production this drop will have to be severe.

Keynesian economics (i.e the idea of stimulating in recessions) was invented in a world where globalisation was barely in its infancy and as such the debt really was only owned predominately by local investors. With local production and local money sourced from foreigners stimulus breaks because foreigners provide you the money to buy their goods - so they are no worse off but you have more debt. Production is the only way to get out of this mess, but the system has structured this so it does not make sense for locals to do so.


----------



## YELNATS (15 May 2009)

Bill M said:


> How it affects me:
> 
> 1. Now we MUST wait until 67 to get a Pension
> 
> ...




The co-contribution is a furphy anyway. I thought I was going to get the full $1500 this year, as my taxable income was below the threshold where the payment starts to decline. Not so, the amount is based on gross assessable income, which for me was quite a bit higher, so I only get a mere pittance.

However, the greatest problem with the budget for me and many others approaching retirement is the halving of the concessionally taxed superannuation contribution amount from $100,000 to only $50,000.

The government wants us to fund our own retirement, but is pulling the carpet away from under our feet, thereby increasing the number of retirees applying for the pension and therefore future federal deficits.

One year we have encouragement to self-fund our retirement, the next we have disincentives to do so.

I had a 2 hour session with my accountant yesterday and he was appalled at the surprise budget changes, indicating that Messrs Rudd and Swan don't understand what they have done or what they are doing.

Do I detect a whiff of incompetence in Canberra?


----------



## Bill M (15 May 2009)

YELNATS said:


> > The co-contribution is a furphy anyway. I thought I was going to get the full $1500 this year, as my taxable income was below the threshold where the payment starts to decline. Not so, the amount is based on gross assessable income, which for me was quite a bit higher, so I only get a mere pittance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I only have one bit of advice for the Government, Leave our Super and Dividend Imputation alone, let those that want to fund themselves to do so without continuously changing the rules.


----------



## ROE (15 May 2009)

disarray said:


> and who is buying the bonds ...... ?
> 
> you do special deal for iron ore with us yes?




Apparently a lot of smart people , I also like bond especially the index-linked bonds
Bonds out perform equity in the last 10 years and if you want 30 years
it also out perform the equity market as well 

Don't know why people bother invest with superfund they cant even beat the damn bond market

Bond is a grow slowly, never go backward type of investment  and adding in time and compounding a potent combination for decent return


----------

