# Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy



## Garpal Gumnut (21 December 2012)

Today after years of blather by Wayne Swan, Julia Gillard, Penny Wong and Whatsisname Emerson, stating that a Budget Surplus was a done deal, we hear the truth.

There will be no Budget surplus.

Our country will be in deficit, making a loss on it's profits.

Peter Costello, and the Liberal/National Coalition left our country with a Huge Surplus when Swan and his mate Rudd came in to power.

This is serious.

The reason why?

ALP Waste on School Colas, Pink Batts, the Mining Tax and other economic obscenities.

Our youth cannot hope to experience home ownership or steady employment as a result.

The last time this happened was when the Whitlam government was in power. 

I never thought I'd live to see a worse government, or a worse Treasurer.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (21 December 2012)

Craig Emerson, Peter Garrett, Simon Crean, Anthony Albanese, Stephen Conroy, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten  etc are barely literate, they are trained lap dogs of the dominatrix Giilard.


----------



## sptrawler (21 December 2012)

The real laugh is, GG, this is the same government that 5 years ago, was sending out cheques in the mail. Telling everyone to go and buy a plasma t.v, which now people can't afford to run.
I wonder if a lot of this government's ineptness lie in the fact nobody was competent enough to ask th right questions.
Lets be honest: 
Personal tax rates are up. 
Carbon tax has been introduced.
Resource tax has been introduced.
The retirement age has been lifted 67.
The disability pension has been made almost impossible to obtain.
The amount people over 50, can concessionaly put into super has halved.
They are appearing like a pay day loan shark, "here you go $900 in the mail and 20 years of misery paying it off"lol


----------



## sptrawler (21 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Craig Emerson, Peter Garrett, Simon Crean, Anthony Albanese, Stephen Conroy, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten  etc are barely literate, they are trained lap dogs of the dominatrix Giilard.




They just have to hang in for a tax free, indexed, lifetime pension.


----------



## noco (21 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Craig Emerson, Peter Garrett, Simon Crean, Anthony Albanese, Stephen Conroy, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten  etc are barely literate, they are trained lap dogs of the dominatrix Giilard.






It could not have happened to a "nicer" lot of people.


----------



## nulla nulla (21 December 2012)

I congratulate you GG on your indomnitible spirit and tireless determination to open endless numbers of new threads devoid of any real substance apart from proffering yet another sensantional excuse to bash the labor party. 

Damned if they do and damned if they don't, who cares lets just point the finger and launch into another thread.

Well done.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 December 2012)

nulla nulla said:


> I congratulate you GG on your indomnitible spirit and tireless determination to open endless numbers of new threads devoid of any real substance apart from proffering yet another sensantional excuse to bash the labor party.
> 
> Damned if they do and damned if they don't, who cares lets just point the finger and launch into another thread.
> 
> Well done.




No substance, eh.

A Deficit due to mismanagement and lack of governance over spending, that was Avoidable.
Higher interest rates for our young couples buying houses as a result.
Profligate decisions by this excuse for an economic management team.
Mining companies already under stress from lower prices enduring a Mining Tax if they make a profit.
A bizarre denial that their mismanagement would lead to a deficit, even by Albanese as recently as 4 days ago.

Whitlam at least had the excuse that he had his caucus behind him. This mob are on their own.

If the Libs did it I'd be just as angry.

But they wouldn't, or I would hope they never would.

gg.


----------



## bellenuit (21 December 2012)

I think the big problem now is that since they no longer need to deliver on their minuscule surplus of $1B or $2B and public focus is taken off it, we will see the current account deficit start to blow out considerably. First it will be a couple of billion, but each time there is a dip in revenue (remember they still are forecasting revenue from the mining tax) you will see another another few billion added on. Before we know it we will be $20B or $30B in the red for this year.

You even had calls today from The Greens and some others that since Labor are no longer committed to a surplus, some of the spending cuts they introduced to achieve that surplus should be abandoned. In other words, if you are going to be a little in the red for the year, you might as well be a lot in the red, as there will be no additional political fallout.


----------



## MrBurns (21 December 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I think the big problem now is that since they no longer need to deliver on their minuscule surplus of $1B or $2B and public focus is taken off it, we will see the current account deficit start to blow out considerably. First it will be a couple of billion, but each time there is a dip in revenue (remember they still are forecasting revenue from the mining tax) you will see another another few billion added on. Before we know it we will be $20B or $30B in the red for this year.
> 
> You even had calls today from The Greens and some others that since Labor are no longer committed to a surplus, some of the spending cuts they introduced to achieve that surplus should be abandoned. In other words, if you are going to be a little in the red for the year, you might as well be a lot in the red, as there will be no additional political fallout.




Yes from here on it will be a vote buying exercise.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> The real laugh is, GG, this is the same government that 5 years ago, was sending out cheques in the mail. Telling everyone to go and buy a plasma t.v, which now people can't afford to run.
> I wonder if a lot of this government's ineptness lie in the fact nobody was competent enough to ask th right questions.
> Lets be honest:
> Personal tax rates are up.
> ...




Very true sptrawler.

gg


----------



## Some Dude (22 December 2012)

Who would have thought you were right GG. Compared to other major economies, the results are pygmy like.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> ... we hear the truth.
> 
> There will be no Budget surplus.
> 
> ...




Chart 1.3: International comparison of budget balances, 2011‑2017




Chart 1.4: International comparison of net debt, 2011‑2017




Source.


----------



## sails (22 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> Who would have thought you were right GG. Compared to other major economies, the results are pygmy like...




Just because we are not as financially strapped as other countries doesn't mean that Australia should follow their footsteps down the same slippery slope.

Surely Australia should perform the best it could be? 

I suppose you would also say a kid that gets a fail but didn't fail as badly as some of his mates has done well.  

That is stupid thinking...


----------



## IFocus (22 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> Who would have thought you were right GG. Compared to other major economies, the results are pygmy like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The mob here didn't get the last set of charts, personally I think its to do with the Chinese made right only looking eye glasses the old Australian made ones had a bit better peripheral vision.

I am fairly certain of this because the younger generation who do not need glasses don't seem to have the same affliction.

BTW I don't wear glasses yet

In  these political threads of vast fact vacuum you have to under stand that the rest of the worlds economic impact has absolutely no affect in the Australian conservative  bubble world. 

I doubt any here will pick that minor point up.

2013/14 are going to get tougher IMHO

The new Japanese PM gets his way and  gets the BOJ to really print cash.

US print more cash

Europe to stagger on de-leveraging and guess what print more cash (Spain blows up any way then the world turns to look at France and its banks)

China to compete will drop its currency valve one way or another.

All means a very strong AUD = great holidays but less jobs  

Will really need Hockeys magic calculator to get through all that I think......with a surplus.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 December 2012)

Alternatively we could just strat printing cash to weaken our dollar. All the other cool kids are doing it with no care, so why should we be penalised for having low debt/no printing?

While i dont agree with doing it from a financial viewpoint, it is the way the game is being played these days and to try and make some sort stand which weakens the economy/jobs is like a football team deciding they will play with no interchange


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

Maybe look at this chart to get a realistic performance  appraisal.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/government-debt-to-gdp

That was all accomplished with a booming mining industry.LOL


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> Who would have thought you were right GG. Compared to other major economies, the results are pygmy like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am right Dude. You conveniently omitted the preamble and the source of these graphs which are predictive, i.e. modelling.

Similar to Weather / Warmist graphs, and we all know how accurate they are.

The graphs came from Wayne Swan, a discredited fellow soon to lose his job. 

I will post the preamble below which clearly states the graph is predicted on an Australian Budget Surplus this year.

The other elements on the graph are predictive from the other countries.

Lucky you didn't buy stock in 2006-7 on their predications.



> Fiscal outlook
> The expected underlying cash surplus for 2012‑13 is $1.1 billion (0.1 per cent of GDP), increasing to $2.2 billion (0.1 per cent of GDP) in 2013‑14.
> 
> The expected surplus in 2012‑13 is smaller than expected at Budget, driven in large part by the weaker global outlook and the consequent substantial write‑down in tax receipts. Over the five years since the onset of the GFC there has been a substantial write‑down in tax receipts totalling almost $160 billion.
> ...




gg


----------



## Some Dude (22 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> In  these political threads of vast fact vacuum you have to under stand that the rest of the worlds economic impact has absolutely no affect in the Australian conservative  bubble world.
> 
> I doubt any here will pick that minor point up.




Given that most of the opinions expressed in these threads can be dismissed with the same level of data that they are supported by, I figure any discussion that motivates people to include data will move those discussions away from the fact vacuums.


----------



## Some Dude (22 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I will post the preamble below which clearly states the graph is predicted on an Australian Budget Surplus this year.




So state your predictions with data, or the ones you formulate your opinions from, and we will assess those comparatively in the years to come.


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

Like you say, GG you can't be judged on projected performance, only on historical and past performance.

As is shown in the debt/gdp graph I posted, Labor are on a constant worsening trend. Hard to BS that.


----------



## Some Dude (22 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe look at this chart to get a realistic performance  appraisal.
> 
> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/government-debt-to-gdp
> 
> That was all accomplished with a booming mining industry.LOL




How does it compare to other economies through the same timeline?


----------



## moXJO (22 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> How does it compare to other economies through the same timeline?




You would compare it to other economies with similar exports, not the dud ones to try and make it look better then what it is.


----------



## Some Dude (22 December 2012)

moXJO said:


> You would compare it to other economies with similar exports, not the dud ones to try and make it look better then what it is.




I agree completely. One would compare the same time periods against similar economies, unless one was trying to assert a conclusion lacking veracity.


----------



## sails (22 December 2012)

I posted this in one of the Gillard threads, however, it is probably more appropriate here:



sails said:


> Has Swanny lied or didn't he know his numbers?  Tax revenue is* up 9.2%* - see below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why should we believe *anything* coming from labor any more?  Is there anything they have got right?


----------



## sails (22 December 2012)

SameDude - I see you are from Brisbane.  From your posts I take it you were one of the 25% who voted for Anna Bligh to continue her massive spending spree.  Unbelievable...


----------



## So_Cynical (22 December 2012)

nulla nulla said:


> I congratulate you GG on your indomnitible spirit and tireless determination to open endless numbers of new threads devoid of any real substance apart from proffering yet another sensantional excuse to bash the labor party.
> 
> Damned if they do and damned if they don't, who cares lets just point the finger and launch into another thread.
> 
> Well done.




^^^ As i have been saying for over 2 years.

Indomnitible, tireless, determind, sensantional and devoid of any real substance... ironically that pretty much sums up the ASF right...and its as boring as watching paint dry.


----------



## dutchie (22 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> ^^^ As i have been saying for over 2 years.
> 
> Indomnitible, tireless, determind, sensantional and devoid of any real substance... ironically that pretty much sums up the ASF right...and its as boring as watching paint dry.





Boring??  

But your still here.

_Indomitable, determined, sensational _ - for sure, but mainly frustrated - that we have to put up with Labor and have no power to end their incompetence for so long.

Besides which, we are having fun.


----------



## MrBurns (22 December 2012)

dutchie said:


> Boring??
> 
> But your still here.
> 
> ...




^^^^^^^^


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> ^^^ As i have been saying for over 2 years.
> 
> Indomnitible, tireless, determind, sensantional and devoid of any real substance... ironically that pretty much sums up the ASF right...and its as boring as watching paint dry.




Thanks SC.

Not being an Esperanto speaker, I didn't understand it all, but I get yer drift.

gg


----------



## IFocus (22 December 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Alternatively we could just strat printing cash to weaken our dollar. All the other cool kids are doing it with no care, so why should we be penalised for having low debt/no printing?
> 
> While i dont agree with doing it from a financial viewpoint, it is the way the game is being played these days and to try and make some sort stand which weakens the economy/jobs is like a football team deciding they will play with no interchange




Unfortunately printing is an option for the RBA but the effects against the big boys would be totally pointless.

Really the only real option the RBA has is to drop interest rates further to kill the yield which we should see next year

Another issue is our banks ratings being high and particularly European banks rating falling, Frances banks will really come under pressure 2013/14


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Unfortunately printing is an option for the RBA but the effects against the big boys would be totally pointless.
> 
> Really the only real option the RBA has is to drop interest rates further to kill the yield which we should see next year




While trying to keep a lid on the housing bubble. LOL
While at the same time the government is trying to pump up the bubble, by relaxing foriegn ownership restrictions and recently allowing SMSF to buy residential property. Everything labor touches turns into a stuff up, can't wait to see the outcome in the housing market.


----------



## Ves (22 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> and recently allowing SMSF to buy residential property.



False - they always have been able to (subject to related party transaction restrictions - which havent changed).


----------



## McLovin (22 December 2012)

Ves said:


> False - they always have been able to (subject to related party transaction restrictions - which havent changed).




But they weren't able to borrow previously. All those warrant products were designed to allow SMSF's to gain leverage without borrowing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 December 2012)

Commonsense and life experience generally tells me that whenever something is "good" for an extended period, the following "bad" period will also be of lengthy duration and/or severity.

The AUD has been high now for years, harming and in some cases wiping out many domestic industries in the process. Whenever it does fall, there's not a lot there to support it. It's not as though manufacturing etc will start exporting again in a hurry when the factories have been closed and in many cases literally razed to the ground. We'll need a sustained period, years, before investment starts flowing and in the meantime it's likely to be painful.


----------



## Ves (22 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> But they weren't able to borrow previously. All those warrant products were designed to allow SMSF's to gain leverage without borrowing.



Pre 1999 Unit Trust anyone? What about an unrelated private unit trust?

Howard government bought the borrowing rules btw, not Gillard.


----------



## IFocus (22 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> While trying to keep a lid on the housing bubble. LOL




Yes the RBA would like to see housing drift sideways for some time but they would like to see a up tick in construction particularly on the eastern sea board


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

IFocus said:


> Yes the RBA would like to see housing drift sideways for some time but they would like to see a up tick in construction particularly on the eastern sea board




It is hard to balance construction growth and price stagnation.


----------



## sails (22 December 2012)

Here's a graph which shows labor have clearly been enjoying record revenues and yet they have taken us into record debt and deficits.





Read more:
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/12/these-data-show-an-awful-picture-for-the-future-of-jobs.html


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

Ves said:


> False - they always have been able to (subject to related party transaction restrictions - which havent changed).




They may have been able to do it, but as a SMSF trustee I can tell you it was actively discouraged.
This year it is being encouraged.


----------



## Some Dude (22 December 2012)

sails said:


> Here's a graph which shows labor have clearly been enjoying record revenues and yet they have taken us into record debt and deficits.
> 
> 
> View attachment 50085
> ...




Is the black line the change of government or the GFC. You have stated your opinion about one but what do you believe is the effect of the other on that plot?


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

It really doesn't matter, the change of government or GFC. The exponential government debt shows bad management.
If you keep ramping up your household spending, when your wages aren't increasing. You end up bankrupt.
Unfortunately for us, the government doesn't go bankrupt, just hits us with more taxes.

But that's o.k because we think they are fabulous and brilliant and good managers. Jeez give me a break.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> It really doesn't matter, the change of government or GFC. The exponential government debt shows bad management.
> If you keep ramping up your household spending, when your wages aren't increasing. You end up bankrupt.
> Unfortunately for us, the government doesn't go bankrupt, just hits us with more taxes.
> 
> But that's o.k because we think they are fabulous and brilliant and good managers. Jeez give me a break.




+1 

Pity the small business owner.

They must hate Swan and Emerson.

gg


----------



## McLovin (22 December 2012)

Ves said:


> Pre 1999 Unit Trust anyone? What about an unrelated private unit trust?
> 
> Howard government bought the borrowing rules btw, not Gillard.




Weren't pre-1999 unit trusts allowed to make loans to members of SMSF's even if the SMSF held units in the trust? It's not really the same as a SMSF borrowing money. I always though it was more about removing related party transactions. Maybe I'm wrong! pre-1999 was a bit before my time.

You're right on Howard bringing in those changes. If you ask me, SMSF's should not be allowed to gear. There's no need and if it blows up, it becomes the public's problem.


----------



## Some Dude (22 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> It really doesn't matter, the change of government or GFC. The exponential government debt shows bad management.




Are you asserting the premise that when assessing the economic performance of a government, previous trends or external factors are not relevant?

Further, are you asserting that comparisons should be made on absolute and not relative values?


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> Are you asserting the premise that when assessing the economic performance of a government, previous trends or external factors are not relevant?
> 
> Further, are you asserting that comparisons should be made on absolute and not relative values?




No on the contrary, I am asserting that previous economic performance to a recognised constant is paramount.

Are you suggesting poor outcomes should be measured on different constants?


----------



## Julia (22 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> If you ask me, SMSF's should not be allowed to gear. There's no need and if it blows up, it becomes the public's problem.



How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?


----------



## Some Dude (22 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> No on the contrary, I am asserting that previous economic performance to a recognised constant is paramount.
> 
> Are you suggesting poor outcomes should be measured on different constants?




The constant is trend, the absolute value, or the relative value, or comparison to other similar economies?


----------



## McLovin (22 December 2012)

Julia said:


> How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?




Who's going to pay for the shortfall when they retire?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

Julia said:


> How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?




Agree Julia, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

If a SMSF goes a/up, so be it.

Swan's deprecating attitude towards workers with SMSF, however, is unforgivable.

He and Labor will be wiped at the polls by the small business constituency.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

Julia said:


> How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?




I think that was just a glib one liner, as was seen when an investment company went under.
Most smsf take responsibilty for their own outcomes, I haven't heard many of them complaining.
We can lose our own money, we don't have to blame someone else for losing it.LOL


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Who's going to pay for the shortfall when they retire?



Mate, who the hell is going to pay the shortfall for those who have pi$$ed it all against the wall, when they retire.:1zhelp:

At least smsf people have shown a sense of responsibility and saved, that would indicate they would not change their lifetime pattern.
Obviously it is a foreign concept tothe younger generation. You are so lost, vote labor, you need them.


----------



## sails (22 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> Is the black line the change of government or the GFC. You have stated your opinion about one but what do you believe is the effect of the other on that plot?





lol - why ask such a question when there is a note on the chart noting that the black line is the November 2007 election???


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Mate, who the hell is going to pay the shortfall for those who have pi$$ed it all against the wall, when they retire.:1zhelp:




Centre bloody link.

With an odd $900 here or there from the imbeciles who go by the name of the ALP.

gg


----------



## McLovin (22 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Mate, who the hell is going to pay the shortfall for those who have pi$$ed it all against the wall, when they retire.:1zhelp:




Superannuation enjoys concessionary rates of taxation on both the contributions and the capital and income earnt. The idea being that you pay reduced tax on that income because in future years it will take pressure off the public purse to provide for you.

Different kettle of fish to someone paying income tax and then "p!ssing it up against a wall".


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Superannuation enjoys concessionary rates of taxation on both the contributions and the capital and income earnt. The idea being that you pay reduced tax on that income because in future years it will take pressure off the public purse to provide for you. If someone wants to p!ss their money up against a wall that they have earnt and paid tax on, I could care less.




Well then don't complain if it blows up, you obviously don't give a rats either way.

A lot of older people haven't had the advantage of years in super, therefore they have had to forego a lot of lifestyle to get money in super.
For younger people it isn't as much of an issue 'Yet' LOL


----------



## McLovin (22 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well then don't complain if it blows up, you obviously don't give a rats either way.




What does that even mean?


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> What does that even mean?




Refer back to your post #47


----------



## Some Dude (22 December 2012)

sails said:


> lol - why ask such a question when there is a note on the chart noting that the black line is the November 2007 election???




Yeah, for some reason I didn't notice that earlier and then after the discussion zoomed in for a diagram I am drawing up and saw it. My bad <Looks for the emoticon where one puts on their glasses>


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> Yeah, for some reason I didn't notice that earlier and then after the discussion zoomed in for a diagram I am drawing up and saw it. My bad <Looks for the emoticon where one puts on their glasses>




Don't feel bad Dude,

I too was in denial when Fraser buggered the economy up and ole Hawke/Keating came in.

Just look forward to a better future under Abbott/Hockey. your children will thank you.

gg


----------



## Julia (22 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Who's going to pay for the shortfall when they retire?



I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super.  Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia.  SMSFs are not.
I thought you might have been referring to that.

Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs?  Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?

As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves.  I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.

Overall SMSFs are doing very well, outperforming most of the public super funds.
I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you are apparently antagonistic toward the sector.



> If you ask me, SMSF's should not be allowed to gear.



Many SMSFs have a Trust Deed which precludes any gearing.  I doubt that many are doing much borrowing at all.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

Julia said:


> I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super.  Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia.  SMSFs are not.
> I thought you might have been referring to that.
> 
> Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs?  Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?
> ...




+1

gg


----------



## Ves (22 December 2012)

Julia said:


> I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super.  Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia.  SMSFs are not.
> I thought you might have been referring to that.
> 
> Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs?  Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?
> ...



This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.


----------



## McLovin (22 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs?  Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?




Of course I'd rather that. I question whether the average person really understands debt well enough that they should be leveraging their retirement. Just imagine the carnage that would have been wrecked on SMSF's if they had been leveraged to equities through the GFC. 



Julia said:


> As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves.  I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.




I'm not criticising them. I made a statement that there is no need for someone to leverage their superannuation in order to retire comfortably. It only adds unnecessary risk. Privatised gain, socialised loss. As the Americans like to call it.


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

Julia said:


> I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super.  Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia.  SMSFs are not.
> I thought you might have been referring to that.
> 
> Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs?  Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?
> ...




Thanks for the relief v/v Julia.
Mclovin if you want to debate the rights and wrongs of a smsf. Please start a thread I will give you plenty of feedback. Maybe you could start the thread "why you should give your money to someone else, to lose"

Just read your last post, Mclovin, if you read up you would know smsf are the most conservitive investors. But you probably know that, you also probably know that retail funds are still geared 60-70% in shares,


----------



## McLovin (22 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Thanks for the relief v/v Julia.
> Mclovin if you want to debate the rights and wrongs of a smsf. Please start a thread I will give you plenty of feedback. Maybe you could start the thread "why you should give your money to someone else, to lose"




Constructive as always.


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

Ves said:


> This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.




Yeh, right people who have done it are strawmen, people like yourself are?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

Ves said:


> This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.




As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.

The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.

Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".

gg


----------



## Julia (22 December 2012)

Ves said:


> This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.




Really?  I'm sure you'll be happy to justify that statement.

Burglar has started a thread "Why I joined ASF".
I'm getting pretty close to starting one entitled "Why I'm leaving ASF".  It will be because of the constant petty sniping instead of constructive discussion.


----------



## Julia (22 December 2012)

McLovin said:


> Of course I'd rather that. I question whether the average person really understands debt well enough that they should be leveraging their retirement. Just imagine the carnage that would have been wrecked on SMSF's if they had been leveraged to equities through the GFC.




Agree.  This is sadly demonstrated on the Storm Financial thread.
I just don't think the average person with a SMSF does get involved in leveraging.
I suppose there might be some stats on this somewhere.  Might be interesting to follow up.



> I'm not criticising them. I made a statement that there is no need for someone to leverage their superannuation in order to retire comfortably.



Whilst I agree that leveraging Super is very risky (it's something I'd never dream of doing), I'm not sure you can so categorically say that it's possible to retire comfortably without leverage.  It obviously depends on when you started contributing to super, your age, your anticipated retirement age, your income etc.
Given that many current retirees did not make super contributions throughout their working lives, they are not retiring 'comfortably' at all.  

And there's no certainty that even with increased compulsory contributions retirees of the future will not be drawing on a government pension, especially if lump sum withdrawals continue to be allowed.


----------



## Ves (22 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Really?  I'm sure you'll be happy to justify that statement.



You've completely misrepresented the essence of his argument (ie.  he is anti-SMSF, when he is really just doubtful of the benefit of borrowing in such a structure).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

Ves said:


> You've completely misrepresented the essence of his argument (ie.  he is anti-SMSF, when he is really just doubtful of the benefit of borrowing in such a structure).






As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.

The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.

Explain how this is a "Strawman Argument".

gg


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2012)

Ves said:


> You've completely misrepresented the essence of his argument (ie.  he is anti-SMSF, when he is really just doubtful of the benefit of borrowing in such a structure).



Where has anybody shown statistics of smsf borrowing? at all.
You really need a reality check. Maybe you have done that and found yourself wanting, who knows.


----------



## Ves (23 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Where has anybody shown statistics of smsf borrowing? at all.
> You really need a reality check. Maybe you have done that and found yourself wanting, who knows.




Statistics???  What has this got to do with what we are talking about?


----------



## Ves (23 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.
> 
> The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

Ves said:


> Statistics???  What has this got to do with what we are talking about?




Read your post #69 you were making a statement, I was asking if you could substantiate it. Obviously you have lost the plot somewhat.
Maybe the night is late and you are misting


----------



## Ves (23 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Read your post #69 you were making a statement, I was asking if you could substantiate it. Obviously you have lost the plot somewhat.
> Maybe the night is late and you are misting



I'm not going to join the dots for you, but the intention of McLovin's post was certainly not to suggest:



> Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?




or to suggest:



> As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.




My question is how does suggesting that leverage may be risky and unsuitable for SMSF and therefore if it goes wrong who pays for the retirement shortfall due to these mistakes suddenly mean that he is questioning the motivation of SMSF trustees and saying that they shouldn't bother to fund their own retirement through their SMSF?

It's a complete misrepresentation in my eyes and it's quite common on this forum, hence my comment that it is a "Strawman argument."   It isn't even a sniper remark on my behalf, that's just victim mentality to suggest that.


----------



## McLovin (23 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Agree.  This is sadly demonstrated on the Storm Financial thread.
> I just don't think the average person with a SMSF does get involved in leveraging.
> I suppose there might be some stats on this somewhere.  Might be interesting to follow up.




Maybe not at the moment, given the general distaste for debt. But there'll always be the next boom and bust, and that's when people who are levered get caught with their pants down. At the moment, everyone thinks debt = bad. But I'm sure back in 2006-2007 when the debt restriction was removed it made great sense. 




Julia said:


> Whilst I agree that leveraging Super is very risky (it's something I'd never dream of doing), I'm not sure you can so categorically say that it's possible to retire comfortably without leverage.  It obviously depends on when you started contributing to super, your age, your anticipated retirement age, your income etc.
> Given that many current retirees did not make super contributions throughout their working lives, they are not retiring 'comfortably' at all.
> 
> And there's no certainty that even with increased compulsory contributions retirees of the future will not be drawing on a government pension, especially if lump sum withdrawals continue to be allowed.




That's true. But, I don't think the answer to that is to increase risk in the hope of realising greater returns, to make up for shortcomings in the other factors you mentioned.


----------



## Some Dude (23 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Don't feel bad Dude,
> 
> I too was in denial when Fraser buggered the economy up and ole Hawke/Keating came in.
> 
> Just look forward to a better future under Abbott/Hockey. your children will thank you.




I think you are confusing rose coloured glasses for my prescription ones 




For example, using the logic espoused thus far by the OP of the graph, one could say that the current government has reversed a trend it inherited despite the GFC.

I'm sure that is not the message they want to project so I am trying to establish what the basis for the comparison is.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2012)

Ves said:


> This whole post is a complete strawman argument IMO.






Garpal Gumnut said:


> As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.
> 
> The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.
> 
> ...






Garpal Gumnut said:


> As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.
> 
> The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.
> 
> ...






Ves said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man





Too easy mate.

Explain your reasoning.

It is a dreadful accusation to accuse someone of a Strawman Argument.

Do not ever refer me to Wikipedia to explain your actions. It is demeaning and lacks substance.

Give me *your* reasons why this is a "Strawman Argument"

gg


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

PLEASE could one of you Wally's tell me how much debt smsf's have. I think you are all talking rubbish, i doubt there is any debt attributed to a smsf.
If there was the ATO would be all over them.
Vespurian you seem to have all the answers, can you give me a link or any information to smsf debt?


----------



## Ves (23 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Too easy mate.
> 
> Explain your reasoning.
> 
> ...



I explained it twice above - once briefly, then when you still didnt get it I explained it in more detail.  Go have a read.

"dreadful accusation"  (I would call it a critique of her argument, I'm not exactly saying she committed a crime or anything)

"demeaning and lacks substance"  (sptrawler seemed a bit confused as to what a "Strawman argument" was in his first reply to me - so I kindly provided a link - looked like you were in the same boat to be honest). 

"I'm going to leave" (complete over-reaction, but if you feel this way remember every time you post on a public forum, there are going to be people that disagree with you or disagree with your arguments or the way you have phrased them).

Seriously though, you guys crack me up.  So content to dish out, but quick to play victim.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> PLEASE could one of you Wally's tell me how much debt smsf's have. I think you are all talking rubbish, i doubt there is any debt attributed to a smsf.
> If there was the ATO would be all over them.
> Vespurian you seem to have all the answers, can you give me a link or any information to smsf debt?




He's gone missing.

Very very very very very, practically no SMSF's have debt.

I have a SMSF and if it was useful to have debt I'd have it.

And he has no idea what a Strawman Argument is.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

Ves said:


> I explained it twice above - once briefly, then when you still didnt get it I explained it in more detail.  Go have a read.
> 
> "dreadful accusation"  (I would call it a critique of her argument, I'm not exactly saying she committed a crime or anything)
> 
> ...




Mate, as my sons would say, you are such a dick.


----------



## Ves (23 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> PLEASE could one of you Wally's tell me how much debt smsf's have. I think you are all talking rubbish, i doubt there is any debt attributed to a smsf.
> If there was the ATO would be all over them.
> Vespurian you seem to have all the answers, can you give me a link or any information to smsf debt?



I don't have any stats - BUT the ATO recently released a tax payer alert directed at SMSF borrowing arrangements (they don't normally issue these unless they are getting a bit nervous about the state of things in respect to the issue described within the alert).

See this link:

http://www.superguide.com.au/smsfs/smsf-property-ato-issues-warning-over-borrowing-arrangements

There is also a link to the alert in there somewhere.

SMSF borrowing is still pretty new so the statistics have not reached any where near critical mass - but I can tell you from my experience in the industry that they are getting very popular.  Some of the people using them (and also the loop holes people are finding) make me a bit nervous.  Do you think it is fair for instance, that someone can provide their own SMSF the source of funds from their personal assets and pay zero interest on this loan? The ATO is allowing it too!!! I would have thought that that breached the "arms lengths" rules embedded in the SIS act - but apparently not.  I think loopholes such as this provide a lot of scope for exploitation. Don't get me started on unit trusts.  I thought that this was superannuation, not a way of funnelling money out of your own high tax individual accounts into a low tax haven.


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He's gone missing.
> 
> Very very very very very, practically no SMSF's have debt.
> 
> ...




Yes,GG, one has to wonder if he isn't a financial planner.


----------



## Ves (23 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And he has no idea what a Strawman Argument is.



Can you provide any substance for this horrible, horrible accusation?


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

Ves said:


> I don't have any stats - BUT the ATO recently released a tax payer alert directed at SMSF borrowing arrangements (they don't normally issue these unless they are getting a bit nervous about the state of things in respect to the issue described within the alert).
> 
> See this link:
> 
> ...




Well vespurian, I have a smsf, have worked for wages all my life brought up 4 kids and retired at 56 and I don't need you to tell me how to suck eggs.


----------



## Ves (23 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Very very very very very, practically no SMSF's have debt.



That's a reasonably accurate observation at the moment.  But have you noticed the "information kiosks" selling people SMSF borrowing kits in a lot of the major shopping centres lately?   The sharks are on the prowl and the ATO is definitely becoming aware of the schemes being promoted.  Lots and lots of coverage on SMSF borrowing by SPAA this year. I wonder why a peak professional body would be doing that?


----------



## Ves (23 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well vespurian, I have a smsf, have worked for wages all my life brought up 4 kids and retired at 56 and I don't need you to tell me how to suck eggs.



So why ask the question of me if you knew all of that?  You're clearly trolling.  Actually I don't think I've ever seen you post anything remotely useful.


----------



## McLovin (23 December 2012)

So, we're agreed that SMSF's do borrow. Fantastic.

Merry Christmas.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2012)

Ves said:


> Statistics???  What has this got to do with what we are talking about?






Garpal Gumnut said:


> As one of my fellow Queenslanders would say, please explain.
> 
> The throwing about of a "Strawman Argument" has become the recourse of many an illiterate, and I know you, Vespuria are not that.
> 
> ...






Ves said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man






Ves said:


> I'm not going to join the dots for you, but the intention of McLovin's post was certainly not to suggest:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Ves said:


> I explained it twice above - once briefly, then when you still didnt get it I explained it in more detail.  Go have a read.
> 
> "dreadful accusation"  (I would call it a critique of her argument, I'm not exactly saying she committed a crime or anything)
> 
> ...






> Re: Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy
> 
> Originally Posted by Garpal Gumnut
> And he has no idea what a Strawman Argument is.
> Can you provide any substance for this horrible, horrible accusation?




You are hoist by your own petard Ves.

Describe, Ves, if you know, why this is a Strawman Argument, in Detail.

Wikipedia is often recoursed by illiterates, but knowing your knowledge Ves, and intellect Ves, I would not accuse you of that.

Detail why it is a Strawman Argument. 

You have not done so.

So do not say you have.

And please do not insult your fellow posters and members of ASF with a link that any itinerant could access by googling

gg


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

Ves said:


> That's a reasonably accurate observation at the moment.  But have you noticed the "information kiosks" selling people SMSF borrowing kits in a lot of the major shopping centres lately?   The sharks are on the prowl and the ATO is definitely becoming aware of the schemes being promoted.  Lots and lots of coverage on SMSF borrowing by SPAA this year. I wonder why a peak professional body would be doing that?



The problem with young people the don't shut up long enough to listen to older people who have been there.
My late father in law had a great saying "you have two ears and one mouth, use them accordingly"
I fortunately was from a generation where knowledge was respected. 
I still take counsel from an 80 year old guy that left school at 14 to deliver telegrams, he is a multi millionaire.


----------



## Joe Blow (23 December 2012)

I would ask that everyone please stay on topic and debate the topic at hand, not attack others personally.

Let's not let this thread get sidetracked, or degenerate into bickering.


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

Sorry Joe, just hate unfounded attacks on credible answers.


----------



## Joe Blow (23 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Sorry Joe, just hate unfounded attacks on credible answers.




Please consider adding people to your ignore list rather than use insults.


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

How do you do that?


----------



## Joe Blow (23 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> How do you do that?




Add their user name here, or simply view their profile and click on the "Add to Ignore List" link.


----------



## sails (23 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> I think you are confusing rose coloured glasses for my prescription ones
> 
> View attachment 50092
> 
> ...





SomeDude - do you bother to read anything other people write?  You missed the note on the chart explaining the meaning of the black line and then carried on with irrelevant posts as to what the black line meant.

And did you miss my post with the link below which I have posted twice before in two different threads?  It explains how *Swan has blamed the failure to reach surplus on shortfall in tax revenue*.  Now please re-read that and try and remember it.  It is the reason that the OP (you could have used my name instead of a rude OP or maybe you couldn't remember that either)...




sails said:


> Has Swanny lied or didn't he know his numbers?  Tax revenue is* up 9.2%* - see below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, once again, the reason for the chart is to show either Swan lied or was clueless:

"Swan has blamed the failure to reach surplus on shortfall in tax revenue"

Now refer to this post before you post again about the chart and the "OP"...


----------



## sails (23 December 2012)

Joe Blow said:


> Please consider adding people to your ignore list rather than use insults.




I agree, however, people who deliberately bait by twisting the posts of others should take their medicine...


----------



## Julia (23 December 2012)

Ves, I'm not sure why I bother with your childish stuff which seems to be annoying more than just me.
What I was politely questioning is covered in the following exchange between McLovin and myself:

As below, I thought he might have been referring to the seeking of compensation over a poorly chosen investment.

I think you will find that I'm in complete agreement with McLovin about the undesirability of SMSFs engaging in leverage.  I wouldn't consider it and I think I'm pretty typical of someone with a SMSF.

So perhaps consider allowing a discussion to proceed between the parties instead of feeling obliged to intervene with unjustified comments.



McLovin said:


> If you ask me, SMSF's should not be allowed to gear. There's no need and if it blows up, it becomes the public's problem.






Julia said:


> How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?






McLovin said:


> Who's going to pay for the shortfall when they retire?






Julia said:


> I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super.  Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia.  SMSFs are not.
> I thought you might have been referring to that.
> 
> Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs?  Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?
> ...


----------



## Ves (23 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Ves, I'm not sure why I bother with your childish stuff which seems to be annoying more than just me..




Good for them - and they completely ignored all of the other information I posted.  I guess we're all just into arguing with each other over absolutely nothing - at least you should be able to admit that.


----------



## Calliope (23 December 2012)

Wayne who???


----------



## Country Lad (23 December 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Yes from here on it will be a vote buying exercise.




It has always been a vote buying exercise.  Forget the economic common sense, forget the long term best interest of the country, it is a case of what can we do to improve our poll results.

The worst thing that has happened to this country is the hung parliament which has ensured that logic and good decision making has gone out the window, to be replaced by pure unadulterated selfish politicking by all sides.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## sails (23 December 2012)

Country Lad said:


> It has always been a vote buying exercise.  Forget the economic common sense, forget the long term best interest of the country, it is a case of what can we do to improve our poll results.
> 
> The worst thing that has happened to this country is the hung parliament which has ensured that logic and good decision making has gone out the window, to be replaced by pure unadulterated selfish politicking by all sides.
> 
> ...




And not forgetting that the minority government has had indepents and a labor/green friendly senate to push through whatever legislation they want.  Too bad if it isn't in the best interests or wishes of the majority of voters.  It seems democracy is insignificant in both upper and lower house.

Under these circumstances, the coalition is pretty helpless to stop unwanted legislation going through.  What  selfish politicking have the coalition done?  I think it was reasonable that Gillard should answer questions about any past association with a slush fund where thousands of union members funds are still missing.  She holds the highest office in the land and is spending taxpayer funds at her will - so it seems.  I think the public need to know that she is a fit and proper person to hold so much power in this country.

It would seem now that this ditching of the surplus is most likely to start the vote buying.  It seems they don't care about the long term effect of massive debt they will leave to us and our future generations.


----------



## Some Dude (23 December 2012)

sails said:


> SomeDude - do you bother to read anything other people write?




Yep. But I suspect you read far too much into others.



sails said:


> You missed the note on the chart explaining the meaning of the black line and then carried on with irrelevant posts as to what the black line meant.




How terrible of me to ask instead of assuming what that line was when I did not notice and wasn't able to read the small text until I put my glasses on.

Not sure what you meant about irrelevant posts though as I was discussing this:



sptrawler said:


> It really doesn't matter, the change of government or GFC. The exponential government debt shows bad management.




I found the perceived assertion that external factors or inherited trends were irrelevant fascinating so I asked about it. I chose not to assume but to ask. You seem to struggle with that concept?



sails said:


> And did you miss my post with the link below which I have posted twice before in two different threads?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...






I'm unsure why you think I don't know your conclusion. I'm seeking to understand the mechanics of the premises from which people derive these conclusions because they appear to be views that are, to recast (now that that is acceptable way to change) what moXJO said, a way to simplistically ensure something looks like more of a dud than it is.

My thought process extends a little further than "Ugh, blue under red, smash" and your welcome to join the conversation past that simplicity if you want.

If you read back through my posts on this thread, you should identify the following theme in my posts. How do people assess the economic performance of a government, and is it a sound and valid application that we can use. Prediction vs historical, quality of comparisons, extrapolations and trends, cherry picking and veracity.

If you find these things irrelevant or too complicated, then ignore me and the discussion.

And while we are temporarily on the topic of what people mistake and irrelevant posts, no, I did not vote for the ALP in the last state election. Maybe a discussion about how you derive these and other conclusions would  be beneficial to your personnel growth and enlightenment?


----------



## sails (23 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> Yep. But I suspect you read far too much into others.




l don't think so as I actually have very little time to dig so deep into posts! 




> How terrible of me to ask instead of assuming what that line was when I did not notice and wasn't able to read the small text until I put my glasses on.




My apologies - I didn't see that post about the glasses....



> Not sure what you meant about irrelevant posts though as I was discussing this:




Probably because I felt you were wanting to try and find something other than the fact that Swan was incorrectly blaming a fall in tax revenue for his deficits.



> I found the perceived assertion that external factors or inherited trends were irrelevant fascinating so I asked about it. I chose not to assume but to ask. You seem to struggle with that concept?




Honestly, I don't have time to read so much into everything and the rest of your post is way too deep for me...

My apologies for being abrupt - I see you were looking for deeper meanings and I was only interested in the straightforward message of the chart.  I accept we are coming at it from different viewpoints...


----------



## Some Dude (23 December 2012)

sails said:


> My apologies for being abrupt - I see you were looking for deeper meanings and I was only interested in the straightforward message of the chart.  I accept we are coming at it from different viewpoints...




Accepted!

I think there are many real problems (regardless of which brand of government) that genuinely do exist. I understand where you are coming from about straight forward messages. I'm an analyst by nature and profession so my first question is almost always "yeah, how do we know that". I do disagree with many people on this forum about a wide variety of issues, some you will obvious, some not so much, but my intention is to look at the data and try to understand why people draw their conclusions.

I very much appreciate your message. Thank you.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> My thought process extends a little further than "Ugh, blue under red, smash" and your welcome to join the conversation past that simplicity if you want.




Perhaps that is your problem.

You are unable to see clearly because you have so many pairs of glasses on.

What you fail to realise mate, is that as the ALP have done, you cannot spend profligately and wastefully, with money that is not coming in. 

The ALP wasted money through poor governance during the GFC.

They furthermore imposed taxes which have scared the mining sector from investing forward in Australia.

And finally because of their inability to achieve a surplus they have stripped departments of money essential for building infrastructure, again denying jobs and taxes.

gg


----------



## noco (23 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Perhaps that is your problem.
> 
> You are unable to see clearly because you have so many pairs of glasses on.
> 
> ...




The Green/Labor socialist left wing government just love credit cards.

Stick it on the bill, don't worry if you can't pay it back, dont worry about the interest on anything over due for payment. Just like when you die with a massive credit card build up, the next generation will pay for it. No worries for Gillard and Swannie they will be long gone.


----------



## sails (23 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Perhaps that is your problem.
> 
> You are unable to see clearly because you have so many pairs of glasses on.
> 
> ...





Well said, GG, and nice to have you back posting again ...


----------



## MrBurns (23 December 2012)

sails said:


> Well said, GG, and nice to have you back posting again ...




+1...


----------



## Some Dude (23 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Perhaps that is your problem.
> 
> You are unable to see clearly because you have so many pairs of glasses on.




My glasses have been the best thing that have happened to me. I spent years with good vision but over the last few years noticed I was getting a lot of headaches which was coinciding with reading. It wasn't until very recently that I noticed that despite being able to see very fine print very far away, my vision was blurring when close. It's just got to the length of my monitor now which puts it in that uncomfortable stage where glasses were on or off many times but my new transitions are great.

The reason for my anecdote? I'm not simply going to take your word for it. I and others should put their glasses on and check the fine print. Some things which seem obvious to those predisposed to a world view suddenly appear less obvious  once all the relevant information is considered. As you astutely stated in another thread:



Garpal Gumnut said:


> ... may I just say that we should await the slow turn of the Law to decide these matters.




Wise counsel for a wide variety of circumstances and reasons.

To the topic at hand.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> What you fail to realise mate, is that as the ALP have done, you cannot spend profligately and wastefully, with money that is not coming in.




I'm not sure if you think you are the only person who understands math but math isn't that hard and you certainly don't hold a monopoly on the concept that surpluses are preferable to deficits. While I do have a T-Shirt that states 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2, most of my friends get the joke and have conversations of differing opinions without telling me that I fail to realise that an overall positive cash flow situation is better than a negative one. In fact, I'd venture that even the ALP realise that so it shouldn't be too much of a leap to set aside your problematic, and yet possibly enlightening about your thought process, statement and move onto the why you believe what you do and whether it correlates to what we can see.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> The ALP wasted money through poor governance during the GFC.




At the start of this thread you cited list of items you believe "economic obscenities" so I assume you believe they should not have happened at all? Should have happened better? Or the money spent on different programs?



Garpal Gumnut said:


> They furthermore imposed taxes which have scared the mining sector from investing forward in Australia.




Sources for this? In particular, data or graphs would be helpful to illustrate the fear. Anecdotal evidence I have experienced working in the mining and energy industry does not support this.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> And finally because of their inability to achieve a surplus they have stripped departments of money essential for building infrastructure, again denying jobs and taxes.




I'm trying to follow the logic here.

1. According to the graph that sails posted, tax receipts are down.
2. The government has attempted to reduce the level of spending.
3. The tax that would have been collected could have been spent on building infrastructure (A stimulus or stimulus like effect?).

Am I understanding your train of thought correctly here?

I'm also trying to establish causality. If you believe that the graph sails posted is correct, then what do you believe the government did that caused tax receipts to be down? What should they have done?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> My glasses have been the best thing that have happened to me




You are conflating a simple argument by confusing posters with sesquipedalian contortions and obscure economic arguments, that have no pertinence to present circumstances.

As any householder knows, you need to earn more money than the bills coming in.

That is the nuts of it all.

And the ALP and Wayne Swan in particular have dismally failed in this essential task.

And Wayne Swan now admits it.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

The other thing to consider, some dude, is the government has at its disposal a very powerfull economic modelling programme.
They would have been well aware of the current outcomes. What they could have done differently is subjective. What they did is what is open for criticism and will be what they are judged on.
It may prove at a later date, they chose the right path. Currently they appear have chosen the path that was self serving to the detriment of the economy.IMO
Apart from an increase in the tax base and reciepts, with a constantly increasing deficit, what has Swan got to hold up as a legacy to his tenure, other than political survival?


----------



## Julia (23 December 2012)

sails said:


> My apologies for being abrupt - I see you were looking for deeper meanings and I was only interested in the straightforward message of the chart.  I accept we are coming at it from different viewpoints...






Some Dude said:


> Accepted!
> 
> I think there are many real problems (regardless of which brand of government) that genuinely do exist. I understand where you are coming from about straight forward messages. I'm an analyst by nature and profession so my first question is almost always "yeah, how do we know that". I do disagree with many people on this forum about a wide variety of issues, some you will obvious, some not so much, but my intention is to look at the data and try to understand why people draw their conclusions.
> 
> I very much appreciate your message. Thank you.



Much kudos to sails and Some Dude for your capacity to extend understanding.  It's often difficult with the typed word to pick up the finer nuances which correctly explain what the poster is meaning.
I so wish more of us were able to show the graciousness that you've both demonstrated above.
We could all emulate this unnecessary curtailing of squabbling.


----------



## Some Dude (23 December 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You are conflating a simple argument by confusing posters with sesquipedalian contortions and obscure economic arguments, that have no pertinence to present circumstances.




Setting aside demonstrating your perspicacity, you raised the items I discussed. If you believe they have no pertinence to the present circumstances then don't state them.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> As any householder knows, you need to earn more money than the bills coming in.




Perhaps Sisyphean is a more appropriate word. 



Garpal Gumnut said:


> And the ALP and Wayne Swan in particular have dismally failed in this essential task.
> 
> And Wayne Swan now admits it.




We can discuss the adjective "dismally" if you like? Unless you find your choice of word not pertinent? Otherwise what you say is true. I assume you feel likewise about Joe Hockey's "recast" of the Coalition's pledge?


----------



## Some Dude (23 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> The other thing to consider, some dude, is the government has at its disposal a very powerfull economic modelling programme.
> They would have been well aware of the current outcomes. What they could have done differently is subjective. What they did is what is open for criticism and will be what they are judged on.
> It may prove at a later date, they chose the right path. Currently they appear have chosen the path that was self serving to the detriment of the economy.IMO
> Apart from an increase in the tax base and reciepts, with a constantly increasing deficit, what has Swan got to hold up as a legacy to his tenure, other than political survival?




That is what is baffling to me also. I looked at that drop in receipts and thought how do you keep saying you are going to keep a surplus. Seemed like expediency to me also.

What (in people's opinions) should a government do during this part or are people saying that drop was the government's fault?




Further, forget for a moment who the government was. If the government changed the spend rate that much so that it was always in surplus (or near enough), what do people think the effect have been? Are there other countries during the similar (not necessarily exact) time period who did that and how are they faring?


----------



## Some Dude (23 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Much kudos to sails and Some Dude for your capacity to extend understanding.  It's often difficult with the typed word to pick up the finer nuances which correctly explain what the poster is meaning.
> I so wish more of us were able to show the graciousness that you've both demonstrated above.
> We could all emulate this unnecessary curtailing of squabbling.




Thanks Julia. I believe that many times we forget the art of how to conduct a discussion with someone while respectfully disagreeing, even to our core, but sails certainly demonstrated that it isn't a lost art.


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> That is what is baffling to me also. I looked at that drop in receipts and thought how do you keep saying you are going to keep a surplus. Seemed like expediency to me also.
> 
> What (in people's opinions) should a government do during this part or are people saying that drop was the government's fault?
> 
> ...




I feel the government stimulus packages, post gfc were way too premature. This was probably brought about by an immature government landing in office at the worst possible time. Then copying senior economic strategies from dissimilar economies.
This immediately put the government fiscal policy out of step with our commodity driven economy. Wages and employment was supporting the the retail sector. What was needed was government spending on infrastructure that was labor intensive and reliant on our manufacturing. Instead they jumped on the NBN, slow build, small scale a death by a thousand cuts.
Water and mass movement of it to where it can be exploited, I think was the call of the day. labour intensive, value adding as it irrigates waste land and ongoing positive outcomes. 
But it probably wouldn't get the votes high speed download would get.

By the way just read Julia's, sails and your comments about decorum and respect, magic just magic


----------



## noco (23 December 2012)

Here is Peter Switzers take on Swan.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...esnt-fool-anyone/story-e6frg9if-1226542087687


----------



## Some Dude (23 December 2012)

sptrawler said:


> What was needed was government spending on infrastructure that was labor intensive and reliant on our manufacturing.




Was there enough labour during that period for that? From memory the unemployment rate at that time was around 5-6%.



sptrawler said:


> By the way just read Julia's, sails and your comments about decorum and respect, magic just magic




Thanks, main kudos to sails though, he took the path more often less traveled.


----------



## sptrawler (23 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> Was there enough labour during that period for that? From memory the unemployment rate at that time was around 5-6%.




With the initial surveying, mapping and the procurement of machinery and logistics running on a similar timeframe. I feel it would have resulted in a ramp up in labor, many of a semi skilled nature in about 2011. The bonus would be many of the jobs would be of a semi skilled nature, thereby giving employment to the people that most need it ,at this point.
The problem we have, is a lack of skilled trades people. Therefore instigating infrastructure initiatives that require more skilled trades people, again was an immature policy initiative.
Spending more on funding something that was going to compound the problem, was silly and didn't make sense.
To underline the foolishness, I don't see China buying into our telecom system. 
But they sure as hell are buying the Ord River irrigation land also !00,000 hectare farms to grow food.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Obviously Blind Freddie isn't in the Labor party, because I'm sure he would have seen a missed opportunity.


----------



## Calliope (24 December 2012)

Julia said:


> Much kudos to sails and Some Dude for your capacity to extend understanding.  It's often difficult with the typed word to pick up the finer nuances which correctly explain what the poster is meaning..




"Finer nuances" in Dude's posts? You're joking. Perhaps he has some "finer nuances" on the topic of this thread which is "Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy."


----------



## cynic (24 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> Was there enough labour during that period for that? From memory the unemployment rate at that time was around 5-6%....




Some time ago I encountered this unemployment definition:



> Australia adopts the standard international definition of unemployment: people are unemployed if they did not work for at least one (paid) hour in the previous week, were actively seeking work and were able to accept a job in the next week if it were available.




Given the aforesaid definition, I fail to understand how anyone could reliably utilise this statistic in determining the availability (or lack thereof) of additional labour.


----------



## Some Dude (24 December 2012)

Calliope said:


> "Finer nuances" in Dude's posts? You're joking. Perhaps he has some "finer nuances" on the topic of this thread which is "Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy."




Do you mean other than my initial post in which I recast the allusion to illustrate that GG inadvertantly got it right?


----------



## sydboy007 (24 December 2012)

Admittedly not by design, but the Labor Government has been a far lower taxing one than Howard ever achieved in over a decade.

If anyone thinks Hockey is capable of better economic management, please provide some evidence.

All I've heard from the LNP is they will:

* lower taxes

* provide bigger surpluses than Labor

Not sure how you cut taxes from the relatively low levels by recent history, and produce bigger surpluses.

Will be very interesting to se what an Abbott Govt would do to spending, as I'm sure they wont touch the sacred cows of family tax benefits or child care rebates.  For all their claims to small Government, the LNP have been the biggest nanny statists in decades!


----------



## noco (24 December 2012)

sydboy007 said:


> Admittedly not by design, but the Labor Government has been a far lower taxing one than Howard ever achieved in over a decade.




How about you give some evidence that Labor has been a far lower taxing one than Howard. They may have promised but like everything with Labor the promises are always broken. 

All the evidence shows Labor has taxed peoplel more. Just look at the impact of the carbon tax alone.


----------



## Calliope (24 December 2012)

Some Dude said:


> Do you mean other than my initial post in which I recast the allusion to illustrate that GG inadvertantly got it right?




Your initial post where you "recast the allusion" is your only post on the topic of the thread. However it was completely lacking in "finer nuances."


----------



## McLovin (24 December 2012)

noco said:


> How about you give some evidence that Labor has been a far lower taxing one than Howard. They may have promised but like everything with Labor the promises are always broken.
> 
> All the evidence shows Labor has taxed peoplel more. Just look at the impact of the carbon tax alone.




The current government takes a smaller share of GDP than previous one. Coincidentally, the difference between the two explains most of the deficit. So, as sydboy007 said, it wasn't by design but the government is taking less tax revenue.


----------

