# What do you want from next weeks budget?



## son of baglimit (8 May 2009)

again this year a thread to provide your wishes in this years budget.

unlike past years, its strongly assumed there will be NO niceties about it - all the media coverage suggests something painful in it for everyone - and maybe several things for some.

please make your wishlist a realistic one.

personally id like to see more put into health & disability services.

and a real hike on tobacco - no little $2.50 extra - charge those smelly smokers double for that filthy habit.


----------



## Julia (8 May 2009)

*Re: What do you want from next weeks budget*

Agree about health and disability services.

What I would like from this year's Budget is for enough Australians to get hurt so badly that they will never, ever, ever, vote for the ALP again.  Not ever.  Never.  

If that were to happen it would be worth the misery of whatever they dole out next Tuesday.

Just the thought of Swannie delivering it makes me feel nauseated.


----------



## Soft Dough (8 May 2009)

*Re: What do you want from next weeks budget*

I agree with tobacco and healthcare

Total scrapping of FHBG

If there has to be scrapping of 30% PHC rebate, scrapping of 1% surcharge if have no PHC.

Scrapping of any funding for climate change science, and put it into renewable energy research.

Education funding increased dramatically

Taxes lifted across the board ( or at the very least allow bracket creep to steal some back ), and the money invested in infrastructure and investments which protect the country's strategic position regarding mining industry and any new technological or scientific development of any worth.

Scrapping of automotive industry subsidies, and the money put into value added endeavours using our resources, with appropriate training and incentive for our steel producers etc to produce locally and using world's best practice.

But then again, I think I would be looking to the future, and not the next election.


----------



## disarray (8 May 2009)

more bacon


----------



## trading_rookie (8 May 2009)

> What I would like from this year's Budget is for enough Australians to get hurt so badly that they will never, ever, ever, vote for the ALP again. Not ever. Never.
> 
> If that were to happen it would be worth the misery of whatever they dole out next Tuesday.
> 
> Just the thought of Swannie delivering it makes me feel nauseated.




If this forum had a post of the week winner...it'd be this one!


----------



## So_Cynical (8 May 2009)

Realistically...id like the people who can afford to pay more...to pay more.

I believe my wish will be granted.


----------



## jono1887 (9 May 2009)

- Increased taxes on alcohol, tobacco & gambling!!
- Taking over of state run hospital system
- Increased tax free threshold to perhaps 10-12k
- Nationalise public transport infrastructure (I can dream cant I? )
- Increased spending in infrastructure projects (more jobs)
- Increased Education Refund Scheme - for Uni students aswell as primary/secondary: i dont mind if its means tested for uni students... (more free laptops for mee!!)
- Carbon Emissions Trading (very doubtful though... i know its been scrapped)


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 May 2009)

I want Swan to hire some of Turnbull's old bumchums at Goldman Sachs to help fudge the figures.


----------



## Ageo (9 May 2009)

Surplus?















Of debt of course


----------



## jono1887 (9 May 2009)

Ageo said:


> Surplus?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hahahahaha!!! I couldnt stop laughing when i saw the punch line!!!


----------



## investorpaul (9 May 2009)

I want K Rudd and W Swan to admit they have NFI what is going on and that they have made the decision to step down.

Of course that will not happen and we will see an increase in tax a decrease in service with a heap of spin so that K Rudd and W Swan can say its not that bad


----------



## Mr J (9 May 2009)

Introduce a flat tax rate, cut most welfare, minimise government.


----------



## jono1887 (9 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> Introduce a flat tax rate, cut most welfare, minimise government.




Hmm... not to sure cutting most welfare will fix anything besides reducing the deficit!! What do you think will happen to all those people that are dependent on it?? I don't think a flat tax will be appealing to many people either... especially the lower income earners who'd think the rich should pay more.

Minimize govt? how so?


----------



## cutz (9 May 2009)

Get rid of negative gearing; get rid of the silly first home buyers grant.

Investor interest in property will subside; property values may collapse making it more affordable to first home buyers.	

I know that when I was too young to remember negative gearing was scrapped causing a shortage in rentals so I’m interested to hear what you guys think, i suspect this time it may be different.


----------



## Julia (9 May 2009)

cutz said:


> Get rid of negative gearing; get rid of the silly first home buyers grant.
> 
> Investor interest in property will subside; property values may collapse making it more affordable to first home buyers.
> 
> I know that when I was too young to remember negative gearing was scrapped causing a shortage in rentals so I’m interested to hear what you guys think, i suspect this time it may be different.



Why do you think it would be different this time?
There is a shortage of rental property, at least in Qld.
What would happen to all the renters if IP was not an attractive proposition?


----------



## cutz (9 May 2009)

Hi Julia,

I’m no property expert, stocks have been my passion from a young age but down here in Melbourne there seems to be anecdotal evidence of the rental market easing up due to the huge surge in developments, my view is if the negative gearing was pulled along with the buyers grant it will cause a huge correction in the housing market allowing traditional renters a foot in the door of ownership if they so desire.

I also harbor a small amount of resentment in a system that rewards tax dodge techniques; I could never see the point of paying extra interest (to the banks) taking on huge risk in order to take away tax revenue (from society).


----------



## Julia (9 May 2009)

Thanks Cutz.  Good explanation.


----------



## matty2.0 (9 May 2009)

less taxes


----------



## jono1887 (10 May 2009)

cutz said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> I’m no property expert, stocks have been my passion from a young age but down here in Melbourne there seems to be anecdotal evidence of the rental market easing up due to the huge surge in developments, my view is if the negative gearing was pulled along with the buyers grant it will cause a huge correction in the housing market allowing traditional renters a foot in the door of ownership if they so desire.
> 
> I also harbor a small amount of resentment in a system that rewards tax dodge techniques; I could never see the point of paying extra interest (to the banks) taking on huge risk in order to take away tax revenue (from society).




Hmm... a complete removal of the buyers grant and neg gearing will almost kill the construction industry, leading to industry and investor backlash, i seriously doubt the govt would even consider something like that in this current economic climate. And dont the buyers grant help out the 'traditional renters' in buying a home?!?!

Negative gearing for property is not exactly a tax dodge technique... how is it any different from tax deducting the interest from margin lending??


----------



## cutz (10 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Hmm... a complete removal of the buyers grant and neg gearing will almost kill the construction industry, leading to industry and investor backlash, i seriously doubt the govt would even consider something like that in this current economic climate. And dont the buyers grant help out the 'traditional renters' in buying a home?!?!




It's hard to say, a pulling of the grant and negative gearing may cause a collapse in property values, renters may see it as an opportunity to get in taking up the slack, just an idea, who knows what the fallout would be in that situation, everybody would have their own take.





jono1887 said:


> Negative gearing for property is not exactly a tax dodge technique... how is it any different from tax deducting the interest from margin lending??





Borrowing to the extent that negative gearing is achieved effectively cancelling out tax obligations, just check out the Storm saga on typical examples of excess gearing and why its not ideal.

Generally people that are negatively geared are motivated by avoiding taxes, who knows why 

Sorry getting off track here, back to the budget.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (10 May 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Realistically...id like the people who can afford to pay more...to pay more.
> 
> I believe my wish will be granted.




why not stop wasting what they already collect, before asking us to donate extra.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (10 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> Introduce a flat tax rate, cut most welfare, minimise government.




smart man


----------



## Tysonboss1 (10 May 2009)

cutz said:


> I also harbor a small amount of resentment in a system that rewards tax dodge techniques; I could never see the point of paying extra interest (to the banks) taking on huge risk in order to take away tax revenue (from society).




do you think negative gearing only occurs in property.

I would think most leveraged share investments are negative geared.

say you borrow $1000 to by bhp,... you'll probally get $30 in divs but pay $70 in interest, so your down $50 per year which you can claim. 

But this only happens in the first few years,... in 5 years time BHP might have increased divs to $60 and you have paid down the loan so your interest is only $40,... now your up $20 per year,.. 

Negative gearing is only a short term thing,... eventually the goal is to have the earnings outgrow the interest so the investment becomes postive,

 it's not a tax dodge at all.

 you only invest to make money, and if you make money you pay tax one way or another, so whats a few neg years compared to perhaps 40 positive there after.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 May 2009)

1. Stop manipulating the property market via the various schemes currently in place. Let it find its own true level through market forces.

2. Stop throwing borrowed money at consumption of imported goods. From the long term macro perspective, that's nothing short of outright madness.

3. Invest in infrastructure of lasting benefit to the country and that leads to greater productivity and/or establishment of new industries. That means rail, roads, ports, power, water etc not a new set of steps outside the library, a play park for the kids or any other make work schemes with little real value.

4. Establish some sort of fund to invest in industries with long term potential where private funds are, for whatever reason, not forthcoming. Sure, some of it will end up being money down the drain but it will only take a few % of winners to make it worthwhile overall. Put engineers, scientists and professional managers in charge of it, not politicians, and fund it by, say, $1 billion a year.

5. Related to point 3, but fix the water situation. We've got more than enough of the stuff, all we need to do is get on and build the infrastructure we failed to build over the past 30 years. It'll create far more employment here and now than will buying imported consumer junk and it will still be serving the Australian community a century from now. I'd be quite happy to see borrowed money used for this purpose given the long lasting nature of the asset being created with benefits spanning multiple generations - odds are inflation will end up paying most of the bill anyway.

6. Also related to point 3, take a good hard look at whether geothermal energy offers a comparative advantage to Australia. If so, do whatever is required to make it happen. Given the track record of private investors in the power industry, that probably means nationalisation - so be it if it's necessary but make sure it's run by someone competent rather than a treasury bean counter who will almost certainly mess it up completely.

7. Decide once and for all how to properly fund health and actually implement a national plan. Either public or private, just make some decisions and get on with it. Just about the entire system is an outright mess with incredible inefficiency as it stands today - just fix it and stop the constant messing about with how it's funded.

8. Get rid of the non-productive bureaucrats, consultants and especially contractors who are wasting my money. Then we won't need additional taxes to pay for the above.

9. Cut welfare for all but those who genuinely need help. The fortune saved will enable lower taxes, thus meaning the middle class simply doesn't need welfare anymore.

10. Lower the rate of GST but apply it to everything, no exceptions. I know it seems a bit harsh to tax essentials, but it's a recipe for revenue and economic instability when the funding of essential services is funded largely by taxing non-essential spending, thus guaranteeing volatility in revenue during ups and downs in the economy where stability is needed.


----------



## kitehigh (10 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. Stop manipulating the property market via the various schemes currently in place. Let it find its own true level through market forces.
> 
> 2. Stop throwing borrowed money at consumption of imported goods. From the long term macro perspective, that's nothing short of outright madness.
> 
> ...




Some great comments there smurf.
It is extremely frustrating to see tax payer money wasted on numerous hair brained ideas that don't provide any benefit for the long term health of the country.  
I agree with the geothermal investment and if necessary build a city on the location where the geothermal is easily assessable.  Move a lot of the heavy industry(heavy users of power) to this new city and these companies can have access to a constant cheap source of power.  This would also have the added bonus of moving people away from the already heavily populated cities of Sydney and Melbourne.


----------



## Trevor_S (10 May 2009)

*Re: What do you want from next weeks budget*



Julia said:


> What I would like from this year's Budget is for enough Australians to get hurt so badly that they will never, ever, ever, vote for the ALP again.  Not ever.  Never.




That'll never happen, look to Hinchinbrook (state seat) in NQ for what happens when you don't have a labour candidate that lives in the district, has never been to the district and has no intention of ever living in the district, and never did any campaigning in the district, they get >5000 votes from labor stalwarts, totally incomprehensible 

What Rudd apologists don't seem to understand, to be able to see the spendfest will result in a huge tax shortfall and a massive debt. Regardless of populist nonsense about taxing the rich, they will need to tax well down the income food chain, this will lead to a building resentment by the middle class (and lets face it, that's where most of Aus is) as well as more of an impost on the elderly, who typically lean right rather then left, this will lead to a populist right leaning leader (Howard was more centrist) gaining ascendency and harsh impositions imposed upon welfare and public spending in an attempt to reign in the debt laden chaos.

I fear that the backlash against the nonsense of today will be "le terrible" for those on welfare and at the bottom of the income food chain in a decade or so, this of course will be of no concern to Rudd as he will be out by then, pushed out like all of them and will concentrate on writing his memoirs. Blair is the obvious example of what will happen, fiscally irresponsible policy in England has seen the populist Labor led decade leave them with massive public and Government debts that are climbing even higher and spiralling out of control (a pre cursor to our own Government debt), a service based economy that adds no value aside from fluff being the mainstay of what they do and easily cast aside at the slightest sign of hardship.

and I have to agree with Smurf1976 nearly 100%.

*I have voted for neither labor/liberal or national in the past 15 years or so.


----------



## Flip (10 May 2009)

I want more communism in the budget.


----------



## cutz (10 May 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> do you think negative gearing only occurs in property.
> 
> I would think most leveraged share investments are negative geared.
> 
> ...




See that’s the bit i don't get, why should you be entitled to claim against your normal wages because your borrowing costs are more than you investment income ?, also using your BHP example yeah great theory, interest more than income, plenty of burnt fingers in 08, gotta luv it.


----------



## Mr J (10 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Hmm... not to sure cutting most welfare will fix anything besides reducing the deficit!! What do you think will happen to all those people that are dependent on it?? I don't think a flat tax will be appealing to many people either... especially the lower income earners who'd think the rich should pay more.
> 
> Minimize govt? how so?




Cutting most welfare would allow for lower taxes and require less government jobs. Many of those dependent on it should not be dependent on it. Welfare should be for those who truly cannot support themselves. Where to draw the line I cannot say, but it's far more generous than it should be. If you make people responsible for themselves, they'll learn to support themselves. Obviously not everyone can, but you don't teach people to be productive by offering them a cheque every couple of weeks.

A flat-tax certainly isn't appealing to many, because most aren't looking for equal contribution. They want to maximise the contribution of others while minimising their own, and this is not restricted to any particular income class.

Minimise government, well who knows since they seem to need ten people to do one person's job . One way would be to significantly reduce government income and see what jobs remain. If they didn't constantly argue back and forth, we may know what they're actually meant to do, and they may actually get something done. Perhaps make it illegal for lawyers to enter politics?


----------



## Tysonboss1 (10 May 2009)

cutz said:


> See that’s the bit i don't get, why should you be entitled to claim against your normal wages because your borrowing costs are more than you investment income




it would be a bit unfair if you were charged tax on the capital gain after 10years if you were not able to claim all the costs assosiated with generating that capital gain, 

and remember one mans expense is another mans income,.. So one investor may claim a deduction for the interest, but some other investor will be paying tax on the income from that interest, so someone is paying tax somewhere.

as with any business you will generally not report a profit from year one,


----------



## Tysonboss1 (10 May 2009)

cutz said:


> also using your BHP example yeah great theory, interest more than income, plenty of burnt fingers in 08, gotta luv it.




BHP was just a randomly picked example,..

But yes BHP has been raising its dividend so it does fit the example, if you borrowed and bought bhp 5 years ago and have been paying it off, the interest today would be less than the dividends, so it would be positively geared.


----------



## nikemi (10 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Hmm... not to sure cutting most welfare will fix anything besides reducing the deficit!! What do you think will happen to all those people that are dependent on it?? I don't think a flat tax will be appealing to many people either... especially the lower income earners who'd think the rich should pay more.
> 
> Minimize govt? how so?




But the rich do pay more with a flat tax system as the higher the income x % the higher the tax paid.....


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 May 2009)

> 9. Cut welfare for all but those who genuinely need help. The fortune saved will enable lower taxes, thus meaning the middle class simply doesn't need welfare anymore.




Oh wouldn`t that be wonderful. The welfare teet is well and truly gripped between the lips of the co-dependants in our society and the government has added birthing women to the list for the tax payers money to be siphoned into.


----------



## cutz (10 May 2009)

Tysonboss1 said:


> it would be a bit unfair if you were charged tax on the capital gain after 10years if you were not able to claim all the costs assosiated with generating that capital gain,
> 
> and remember one mans expense is another mans income,.. So one investor may claim a deduction for the interest, but some other investor will be paying tax on the income from that interest, so someone is paying tax somewhere.
> 
> as with any business you will generally not report a profit from year one,




Tysonboss, i think you’re missing my point, 

I'm just suggesting negative gearing is pulled, that’s when borrowing/maintenance costs exceed the income from that asset therefore you claim against you normal wages for example, generally popular with property investors.

To use your example without negative gearing, after ten years you sell your asset, you've claimed interest/expenses against *earnings on that asset * you then pay CGT at a reduced rate, so what’s wrong with that?


----------



## Conza88 (11 May 2009)

*TO BE LEFT ALONE.*
​


----------



## Conza88 (11 May 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Realistically...id like the people who can afford to pay more...to pay more.
> 
> I believe my wish will be granted.




​


----------



## Pappon (11 May 2009)

Peter Costello as treasurer and Kevin Dudd to get hit by a BUS


----------



## glads262 (11 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> Peter Costello as treasurer and Kevin Dudd to get hit by a BUS




This, plus

1. Takeover of hospitals.
2. Removal of payroll tax, stamp duty on insurance in exchange.
3. Takeover of all public transport.
4. Sacking of 50% of state pollies (theyre all hacks anyhow, both sides...)
5. Decrease limits for salary sacrifice to superannuation
6. Increase tax on allocated pensions to 15% (same as super)
7. Increase tax on booze, smokes, petrol/diesel, 20% fast food tax.
8. For god sake stop handing out money, and spend the above savings on decent infrastructure - water, energy (geothermal - good one!) to combat our biggest issues coming up in the next 5 years - shortage of water and shortage of oil.

That'll do. 

Although I'm not hopeful...


----------



## freddy2 (11 May 2009)

Include primary residence in pension asset tests.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> Peter Costello as treasurer and Kevin Dudd to get hit by a BUS



At the rate things are going, we won't be able to afford buses much longer.

Will being run over by a horse and cart do instead? Even then, better get on with it while we can still afford to feed the horse.

Seriously, the massive opportunities in this country squandered by successive governments, both Labor and Liberal with generally strong support from the minor parties and independents, is nothing short of remarkable. The last thing we need now is more government meddling but sadly that seems to be exactly what we're going to get.


----------



## bluelabel (12 May 2009)

$900.00

:bier:

blue


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (12 May 2009)

1) I want the heart palpatations to go away when I think about the size of the deficit and what the govmint will try and take from us that belong to Garpals club.
2) Wayne Swan to have an aneurysm on live television
3) Kevin Rudd to run to his rescue, trip and drive a sharp pencil into his shriveled black heart (That'll kill a vampire right?)
4) The rest of the labour party to rush to their dark masters aide, whereupon Hugh Jackman pulls aside the curtains and we see some some expensive special effects as they burst into flame and small charred bits.
5) Elvis Presley to make the *mother *of all comebacks (he was the king) 


That was fun.

Cheers
Sir O


----------



## Temjin (12 May 2009)

freddy2 said:


> Include primary residence in pension asset tests.




hahh that alone will save billion of dollars!

The biggest problem with the current budget is that the government still underestimate the severity of the GFC and is probably projecting a recovery in 2010 and an unemployment rate of no more than 8.5%.

That's unrealistic and could well mean the current budget to go deeper into the hole than anticipated.

Of course, Robin Rudd can easily blame it on the GFC and that no one had forecast the great depression and therefore, could not have planned beforehand. Total BS.


----------



## lookout (12 May 2009)

I'd like to see some honesty with the Australian public. Rudd should get on the TV and explain the business cycle in terms people can understand by relating it to household finances - save money in the good times, tighten our belts in the lean times, keep debt low so you don't waste money on interest payments, etc. Educate people about the realities we face and they'll be more receptive to financially responsible policies since they'll be able to see the better future outcome. 

Unfortunately politicians don't make it to the top with their ethics intact - assuming they had any to begin with.


----------



## son of baglimit (12 May 2009)

lookout said:


> Educate people about the realities we face and they'll be more receptive to financially responsible policies since they'll be able to see the better future outcome.




clearly you overestimate the brain power of the average moron, sorry citizen.

way too many cant control their own finances EVER, and aint gonna have the ability to compare it to business/economy.

this isnt necesarily welfare recipients either - the last 2 years has proved its traders/investors/the gullible/anyone who lacks any visionary genes.


----------



## lookout (12 May 2009)

son of baglimit said:


> clearly you overestimate the brain power of the average moron, sorry citizen.
> 
> way too many cant control their own finances EVER, and aint gonna have the ability to compare it to business/economy.




You could be correct, but I think it's more to do with lack of education rather than lack of ability. Kids growing up in our 'have it now, pay later' society don't have much chance unless someone teaches them about basic financial management together with the evils of advertising.

One of our kids sees a catalogue and says "they're trying to steal our money". The other one is still sucked in by adverts though - she might have to make do with 10% of the inheritance


----------



## son of baglimit (12 May 2009)

lookout said:


> Kids growing up in our 'have it now, pay later' society don't have much chance unless someone teaches them about basic financial management together with the evils of advertising.





theres nothing wrong with 'have it now, pay later', but only if the have is potentially within 'pay now' but simple household cashflow doesnt allow it.
its when they want the best plasma, the best car, the best whatever, to then simply show off to the jones' that they get into strife.

anyway back on budget topic...........

the threshold of $150k per individual or per family is going to be a key to so much - all good to simplify the system, but theres plenty of jones' who aint gonna like it.


----------



## GumbyLearner (12 May 2009)

lookout said:


> I'd like to see some honesty with the Australian public. Rudd should get on the TV and explain the business cycle in terms people can understand by relating it to household finances - save money in the good times, tighten our belts in the lean times, keep debt low so you don't waste money on interest payments, etc. Educate people about the realities we face and they'll be more receptive to financially responsible policies since they'll be able to see the better future outcome.
> 
> Unfortunately politicians don't make it to the top with their ethics intact - assuming they had any to begin with.




Excellent post Lookout.

There is plenty of slime in the Parliaments and on both sides.

Noticed that both Labor and Tories in Britain have been lining their pockets with taxpayers dollars recently. Maybe a cut to pollie handouts would be appropriate in the current climate.

Notice that a Tory in Britain claimed his swimming pool expenses on the public purse.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6270427.ece

I wonder if likes of Swan & Co own swimming pools and make claims for them?


----------



## prawn_86 (12 May 2009)

lookout said:


> I'd like to see some honesty with the Australian public. Rudd should get on the TV and explain the business cycle in terms people can understand by relating it to household finances - save money in the good times, tighten our belts in the lean times, keep debt low so you don't waste money on interest payments, etc. Educate people about the realities we face and they'll be more receptive to financially responsible policies since they'll be able to see the better future outcome.
> 
> Unfortunately politicians don't make it to the top with their ethics intact - assuming they had any to begin with.






lookout said:


> You could be correct, but I think it's more to do with lack of education rather than lack of ability. Kids growing up in our 'have it now, pay later' society don't have much chance unless someone teaches them about basic financial management together with the evils of advertising.
> 
> One of our kids sees a catalogue and says "they're trying to steal our money". The other one is still sucked in by adverts though - she might have to make do with 10% of the inheritance




Im actually considering doing an Honours thesis based on something simliar to this.

Know anybody or any firms that might be interested in giving a scholarship for it...?


----------



## nunthewiser (12 May 2009)

I,d like to see tax cuts for all religeous cults and free v8 cars for all bogans


----------



## kincella (12 May 2009)

well, and here I was considering going back into the workforce...(psst thats what we BB's will do if required) the job pays over 250k pa...the govt considers that wealthy...welll I have news for them...anyway I can go part time and not get hit with all the extra taxes....


----------



## Conza88 (12 May 2009)

son of baglimit said:


> clearly you overestimate the brain power of the average moron, sorry citizen.
> 
> way too many cant control their own finances EVER, and aint gonna have the ability to compare it to business/economy.
> 
> this isnt necesarily welfare recipients either - the last 2 years has proved its traders/investors/the gullible/anyone who lacks any visionary genes.




ABCT causes malinvestment. It distorts the market signals, as only government intervention can do. Those not in the _know_ are affected by it. Those who thought the boom would last, expanded - NOW it's BACK to reality.  

Most people out there are _"dumb"_ because they've believe the bull**** they've been fed whilst they were at Uni, listening to envious,_ "intellectual"_ dead heads, who have no idea about the real world.

Austrian Economics... saw the bubble being blown, told everyone before it did - that it was going to pop.

The rest of the schools of thought, once again - *wrong*.

If you want to keep your money safe. To make the right decisions, to be able to predict the future...  *Mises.org* is all I've gotta say.


----------



## Trevor_S (14 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. Stop manipulating the property market via the various schemes currently in place. Let it find its own true level through market forces.




No surprises we didn't get any of the well suggested points you made...

I was reading this with interest, in relation to your point #1

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13331109



> A decade ago Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick in Britain argued that excessive home-ownership kills jobs. He observed that, in Europe, nations with high rates of home-ownership, such as Spain, had much higher unemployment rates than those where more people rented, such as Switzerland. He found this effect was stronger than tax rates or employment law.
> 
> If there are few homes to rent, he argued, jobless youngsters living with their parents find it harder to move out and get work. Immobile workers become stuck in jobs for which they are ill-suited, which is inefficient: it raises prices, reduces incomes and makes some jobs uneconomic. Areas with high home-ownership often have a strong “not-in-my-backyard” ethos, with residents objecting to new development. Homeowners commute farther than renters, which causes congestion and makes getting to work more time-consuming and costly for everyone. Mr Oswald urged governments to stop subsidising home-ownership. Few listened.






lookout said:


> I'd like to see some honesty with the Australian public.
> ...
> Unfortunately politicians don't make it to the top with their ethics intact - assuming they had any to begin with.




The fault for that lies in the voting public, they have the ultimate say.  If we keep voting for dreck, dreck is all we will get.  The first step (assuming no one is keen on insurrection) is to stop voting the bast_ards back in  

We really do get the Government we deserve.


----------

