# The Budget - What are you looking for?



## son of baglimit (7 May 2006)

as for me, family man, 3 kids, eligible for ftb a&b, 30% tax rate.........

hoping costello delivers on : increases to ftb, increases tax free threshold to 10k

anyone else ?


----------



## louie (7 May 2006)

Increases tax free threshold to $12,000. 
Or move 30% Tax Rate up to $100,000.

No Capital Gains Tax on Assets held for more than 5 years.
Or half CGT again from its current rate.

But I doubt they will do it.........wishfull thinking.


----------



## clowboy (7 May 2006)

Triple Tax free threshold.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2006)

It won't happen but I'd like to see the First Home Owners Grant abolished. The reason being that I believe there is more than adequate evidence that it helps not first home owners, but those who are net sellers of real estate. 

With first home buyers very commonly doing the "how much can we borrow?" thing, the grant simply ends up supporting higher real estate prices. Good for net property sellers but no real help for first home buyers. Given the huge rise in property values in recent times, I don't see the need for what amounts to welfare to those who, in general, have already done quite nicely.

Other than that, this country seriously needs to spend a lot more on R&D and infrastructure. Rail transport, energy and water would seem logical priorities for public investment in infrastructure since private investment simply isn't happening on anywhere near the required scale or with a sufficient timeframe for project viability. 

Whilst maintenance and safety upgrades are certainly worthwhile, I'm very doubtful of the value of major investment in highway capacity. I think that if all the costs are included then rail makes a lot more sense for interstate freight. Put the freight on the rails and we won't need more highways. Rail cuts oil use and greenhouse gas emissions too so makes considerable sense over long distances between mainland capital cities and major regional centres.


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> It won't happen but I'd like to see the First Home Owners Grant abolished. The reason being that I believe there is more than adequate evidence that it helps not first home owners, but those who are net sellers of real estate.
> 
> With first home buyers very commonly doing the "how much can we borrow?" thing, the grant simply ends up supporting higher real estate prices. Good for net property sellers but no real help for first home buyers. Given the huge rise in property values in recent times, I don't see the need for what amounts to welfare to those who, in general, have already done quite nicely.




Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would hope for an end to middle class briber.... oops, I mean welfare, in all it's forms.

It seems that those in genuine need get shafted while the government panders to the mortgage belt.

Alas, 'tis but a pipe dream. The self interest of the majority will insure electoral bribery remains good politics :swear:


----------



## chemist (8 May 2006)

clowboy said:
			
		

> Triple Tax free threshold.




Indeed, what's the point of taxing poor people? Just get rid of the bottom band and make the TFT 20,600.

Real reform: abolish electoral hand-outs, gimmicks, and tricks such as ftb, medicare levy, contributions tax etc. They could cut $20b from the revenue and hand it back as tax cuts without going into to deficit or trying hard if they wanted to.

Of course this will never happen. What we'll get is is some insignificant tax changes and an increase in middle-class welfare.

cheers,
chemist


----------



## nizar (8 May 2006)

Highest tax rate cut from 47 to about 40%
Increase tax-free threshold to about $15Gs
Abolish super tax


----------



## Prospector (8 May 2006)

Hm, having never been eligible for FTB, but have seen my brother in law claim this even though all 3 kids go to private schools, and his partner adjusts her working hours so that they can claim it, whereas I and partner work full time and support ourselves, I think there is an issue with 'middle class' Australia having access to this benefit.

It is major tax reform but Income splitting would reduce Australia's welfare mentality.

For this budget - eliminate all taxes on Super during the Contribution phase.  This includes CGT.

Increase the Tax free threshold to $10,000.

With regard to the first home buyers Grant, I cant see prices falling that much, perhaps instead the Govt should consider that under a certain salary level, mortgage interest rates are tax deductible?


----------



## Knobby22 (8 May 2006)

Family support where one person does not work is a mild form of income splitting Prospector.

True income splitting would be more advantageous to the rich than the poor.

I agree with your other points. 

With regard first home buyers, reducing negative gearing on property would be a simple (if unpopular) way to help.


----------



## professor_frink (8 May 2006)

What am I looking for from the budget?
I'm a 25 year old male with no kids and no mortgage. What I'm looking for doesn't count at all. I will get nothing.


----------



## kitehigh (8 May 2006)

I agree with axing the first home buyers grant.  It has been a total waste of tax payers money. :swear: 

I'd like to see more money put into R&D and especially when it comes to alternatives to oil.  The sooner we can solve the oil issue and move to something else, the more stable the world will be. Not to mention the global warming issues etc due to hydro carbons.


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> With regard first home buyers, reducing negative gearing on property would be a simple (if unpopular) way to help.




Oh yes, now I'm salivating. Lets get rid of NG


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> What am I looking for from the budget?
> I'm a 25 year old male with no kids and no mortgage. What I'm looking for doesn't count at all. I will get nothing.




Indeed!

Ah the subtle difference between a truly representative government, and a straight out democracy (i.e. majority mob rule)(with a few bribes thrown in for the special interest groups). :swear:


----------



## RichKid (8 May 2006)

louie said:
			
		

> .......
> 
> No Capital Gains Tax on Assets held for more than 5 years.
> Or half CGT again from its current rate.
> ...




You might actually see this happening, I read an article somewhere recently about how Howard wants to give progressive discounts on CGT, the longer you hold the lower CGT gets (currently only 50% discount for 12mth holdings based on marginal rate), may even go to zero after X yrs. There was some criticism of it, I forget the arguments now, sounded like a govt gimmick.


----------



## money tree (8 May 2006)

my predictions:

- GST on petrol to be cut (and maybe a bit of excise)
- FHOG to be increased to $14k
- tax free threshold increased to $10k
- top tax rate cut to 43%
- increases to family benefits
- incentives to start a family
- more money for healthcare, defence
- decrease in Super tax rate to 10%

This will be known as the "family" budget. Emphasis on petrol, housing affordability and the aging population.

The smartest move would be cutting or abolishing the Super tax. Increasing the FHOG would not be smart. GST on petrol is dampening the economy and putting pressure on inflation, so doing something here would be a smart move.


----------



## Julia (8 May 2006)

Unlikely it will happen, but - after increasing the tax free threshold and means testing the FHOG - I'd like to see funds for

water infrastructure
mental health and aged care
health care/doctor training generally
subsidised university fees/reduced HECS.

The small amounts likely to be offered as tax cuts make minimal difference to the situation of individual tax payers but in total could do a great deal to improve the above needy areas.

Julia


----------



## krisbarry (8 May 2006)

I would like to see:

- The First Home Owners Grant to be increased to $14,000 as it was in the  beginning, but now be means tested, aged tested etc to allow generation x and y to enter the housing market

- reduced state and federal taxes on home ownership (current rate of all taxes combined for property ownership is 25%) Ouch!

- the recent 25% HECS increase to be abolished

- The Tax Free Threshold raised to at least $12,000 and indexed to inflation

- More childcare places

- More money given to the states to fund hospital beds

- Reduction of the top tax bracket to a maximum of 38%

- More incentives to work, which means to reduce the tax rates on welfare (currently sitting at top rate, whopping 70-80%)

- Increase the $62 per fortnight that a person on welfare can earn b4 benefits start to get cut.

- Increase super co-contributions from it maximum rate of $1,500 to a new rate of $3,000 per year


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2006)

louie said:
			
		

> Increases tax free threshold to $12,000.
> Or move 30% Tax Rate up to $100,000.
> 
> No Capital Gains Tax on Assets held for more than 5 years.
> ...




If they are serious about retirees looking out for their won future and final elimination of the pension--this should be mandatory but I'm for total abolishion.


----------



## tech/a (8 May 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I would hope for an end to middle class briber.... oops, I mean welfare, in all it's forms.
> 
> ...





Hmm your both missing the point of government grants for new homes.

If the building industry slows to a point of negative growth then you'll see a huge rise in unemployment and government costs.

Its not about the buyers.


----------



## Rafa (8 May 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Hmm your both missing the point of government grants for new homes.
> 
> If the building industry slows to a point of negative growth then you'll see a huge rise in unemployment and government costs.
> 
> Its not about the buyers.





Finally, the truth... Exactly, this is INTERVENTIONIST politics, no different to Trade Barriers, Tarriffs, subsidy's (eg to FORD to design the next gen SUV and large car)... to prop up industry and lobby groups.

What I don't understand is how a gov't that claims to be liberal, be more protectionist than the previous labour govt. 

These artificial stimulants are just that... artificial, and only seek in delaying the eventual pain... 

but by then Johnny Howard will have left, leaving Costello / or a Labour govt with a basket case economy, with no infrastructure, no skill base, inefficient manufacturing sector, relying completely on china/india to buy our raw materials and our grain / meat and importing all the rest.

and off course, we'll all still praise howard for the boom time we experienced under his reign... when we built our mcmansions and wallowed in huge debt with low interest rates!!!

what a joke!!!

For the record, I would like to see investment in Education, Infrastructure and Health... Things that will actually contribute to productivity gains in the economy, and downward pressure on interest rate... NOT tax cuts for the battlers, so they can spend more and prop up the retail sector!!! eg Baby Bonus that resulted in Harvey Norman recording highest ever sales of plasma TV;s that week...


----------



## bullmarket (8 May 2006)

With regard to the first home buyers grant I doubt it's had much of the governments's intended impact.

With at least during the last few years the residential market being a sellers' market and so _anyone will be extremely hard pressed to convince me that most if not all of the grant has ended up in the sellers' pocket via inflated prices._

But having said that I also strongly doubt that property prices would fall if the grants was suddenly removed.......therefore I think the grant will be left as is for now.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## wayneL (8 May 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Hmm your both missing the point of government grants for new homes.
> 
> If the building industry slows to a point of negative growth then you'll see a huge rise in unemployment and government costs.
> 
> Its not about the buyers.




If that is the case, then that scenario should have already happened, naturally. As per Rafa's point, it is interventionist, left of centre, middle class welfare, and outright electoral bribery.

Negative growth and unemployment WILL come whether or not intervention. It's a natural part of the cycle and it should have happened already. By now we could have restructured our economy into something other than one supported largely by building and selling houses to each other.



			
				bullmarket said:
			
		

> With regard to the first home buyers grant I doubt it's had much of the governments's intended impact.
> 
> With at least during the last few years the residential market being a sellers' market and so anyone will be extremely hard pressed to convince me that most if not all of the grant has ended up in the sellers' pocket via inflated prices.




LMAO! Where have you been? We are in the final stages of a *3 sigma* price boom mate.

Regression to the mean WILL happen one way or the other, either by high inflation, or nominal price drops.

Cheers


----------



## son of baglimit (8 May 2006)

i suppose in hindsight i should have asked - "what do you realistically expect from this budget" - hence why my choices were conservative.

but keep the wsih lists coming.


----------



## bullmarket (8 May 2006)

no problem wayne 

I'm just calling it the way I see it and I gave my reasons.

There is no verifiable info in your post that proves anything I said in the extract you quoted or the rest of my original post is wrong in any way whatsoever   If you have diferent view to me then that's fine by me   

cheers

bullmarket 



			
				professor_frink said:
			
		

> bullmarket, you forgot to write "we'll have to agree to disagree". It's in the rest of your posts so you better add it to this one


----------



## twojacks28 (8 May 2006)

im going to the budget breakfast on friday. anyone else going?


----------



## professor_frink (8 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> no problem wayne
> 
> I'm just calling it the way I see it and I gave my reasons.
> 
> ...




bullmarket, you forgot to write "we'll have to agree to disagree". It's in the rest of your posts so you better add it to this one


----------



## bullmarket (8 May 2006)

thanks professor_frink 

it's in there now.....I thought I forgot something but couldn't figure out what it was   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (8 May 2006)

that's better


----------



## RichKid (8 May 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> that's better




professor_frink and BullMarket,
It certainly is better, from both of you, this type of friendly disagreement is a whole lot easier for us mods to cope with than sudden nuclear strikes against personal reputations, so well done for being gents about it! You set a good example guys, love the humour!


----------



## son of baglimit (8 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> im going to the budget breakfast on friday. anyone else going?




sounds like all those without kids will be going too - its all they can afford !!!!

baked beans on toast i think.


----------



## money tree (10 May 2006)

money tree said:
			
		

> my predictions:
> 
> - GST on petrol to be cut (and maybe a bit of excise)
> - FHOG to be increased to $14k
> ...




I got at least 5 of those right


----------



## bullmarket (10 May 2006)

hi moneytree 

but so did a lot of other people when you look at what was 'leaked'   

maybe we have the same sources   

bullmarket


----------



## canny (10 May 2006)

I missed hearing the budget last night - *can someone please tell me what the new tax rates are reduced to, and the tax free threshold raised to?*
Personally I am happy to see GST stay on petrol - as that way tourists and others all pat their bit - which goes into revenue. Give us more personal tax cuts, and let the tourists pay more GST into our coffers. We're such a cheap company to visit compared to Europe etc - that they can boost our govt income!!!


----------



## GreatPig (10 May 2006)

See the budget summary here.

GP


----------



## canny (10 May 2006)

GreatPig said:
			
		

> See the budget summary here.
> 
> GP



Thanks GreatPig


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 May 2006)

canny said:
			
		

> Personally I am happy to see GST stay on petrol - as that way tourists and others all pat their bit - which goes into revenue. Give us more personal tax cuts, and let the tourists pay more GST into our coffers. We're such a cheap *company* to visit compared to Europe etc - that they can boost our govt income!!!



Country?  :  :


----------



## MalteseBull (10 May 2006)

The Budget looks good!

Tax bracket has increased so its good for everyone!!


----------



## nizar (10 May 2006)

yes its good..

but those earning 25Gs and those earning 75Gs in the same tax bracket?

i wouldve liked for tax-free rate to be raised to 10Gs or 15Gs

oh and yeh my favourite:

$380million spent on illegal fisherman, and $220million for health and medical research

Hmmmm....


----------



## son of baglimit (10 May 2006)

lets see now  - how many things were purely of benefit to the 'well to do'.

(dont get me wrong, i'm just highlighting them)

substantial tax cuts with lower top rates & higher brackets.

no removal of the ftbb for stay at home wives of the well to do.

removal of rbl for lump sum super payouts.

removal of 15% tax on lump sum payouts.

child care strategy will increase child care in well to do areas, allowing those mums to have additional coffee days with the other mums. (i know this from experience)

small businessmen with well setup (tax reducing) income levels to allow them to sacrifice more into super, gaining the deduction & the govt co-contribution.

the worst - more favours for those greedy idiots who ploughed cash into vineyards, oversupplied the market, then expect all of us to get them out of it - fools saved again.

anyone else wanna contribute ?

lets face it, this was a budget heavily favouring those with fewer money problems than the 'live week to week' types.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 May 2006)

nizar said:
			
		

> yes its good..
> 
> but those earning 25Gs and those earning 75Gs in the same tax bracket?
> 
> ...



Illegal fishermen sounds like illegal immigrants etc Mk 2... So no surprise to put building detention centres on hold and build boat destruction facilities instead.

As for the tax rates, 25 - 75K is a very wide bracket given the actual range of earnings.

The real thing I don't like though is that in actual $ terms, the typical worker in the middle gets the least.


----------



## twojacks28 (10 May 2006)

if there is one thing i cannot stand it is those who say the high income earners get the biggest tax cuts every year and soon. this year there were bigger tax cuts for higher income and lower income earners. however last year middle income earners got the biggest tax cut. what you have to look at is the percentage over the years compared to the one year. also middle income people got a smaller tax cut this year as it is mostly made up for the family packages which gives them even more. 

it was the best budget yet! hands down.


----------



## bullmarket (10 May 2006)

I think it was a pretty good budget overall as well.

The changes to super are really good for me   although I still have a few years yet before I hit 60   

:iagree: 2jacks28 - from memory the lower tax rates got a bigger chunk in % terms of the tax cuts in previous years.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 May 2006)

The family packages etc do not automatically apply to middle income earners. A great many middle income earners, particularly those doing the greatest amount of physical work which keeps this country running and prosperous,  will not see a cent in family tax incentives.

Accordingly family tax should not be counted as tax relief for middle income earners but as welfare in general. How that affects the overall long term tax relief situation I do not know. But family tax packages aren't automatically part of tax relief for middle income earners. At least not unless the government has radically altered the conditions applying to them. 

For the record, I'm not complaining at all about the effects the budget has on me personally. I'm just not impressed with the lack of long term focus 5, 10 or 20 years out given the huge opportunities available to be pro-active rather than leave problems for the future. Most of us will still be alive when that future arrives. I guess it doesn't buy votes today however...


----------



## bullmarket (10 May 2006)

Hi smurf1976

I don't think it will be as many as you say that won't see a cent - and I would also have thought that whether a relief, handout or whatever is called a tax cut or welfare is totally irrelevant. 

What to me would be more important is the total extra $ gained annually. Whether someone then called it a tax cut or welfare would matter zero to me   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## twojacks28 (10 May 2006)

no i wasnt saying that the families package goes to all middle income earners as that is not possible. but it does apply to many australians. as I stated above  over the past few years middle income earners and lower income earners have had bigger tax cuts pecentage wise compared to the higher income earners.


----------



## canny (10 May 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Country?  :  :



Yes - thanks Smurf!!
My mind must have been travelling a little!!!!


----------



## RodC (11 May 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> For the record, I'm not complaining at all about the effects the budget has on me personally. I'm just not impressed with the lack of long term focus 5, 10 or 20 years out given the huge opportunities available to be pro-active rather than leave problems for the future. Most of us will still be alive when that future arrives. I guess it doesn't buy votes today however...




This is the really unfortunate part about the budget which really highlights the short term view of the government. Now (when we have large surpluses) is when there is the opportunity to invest in infrastructure (water, rail etc) and education, training, research and development to secure the future. 
However present governments (of all persuasion) can't see past the next election.

Rod.


----------



## Rafa (11 May 2006)

The Australian lets it rip again in todays editorial....

--------------------------------------------------------

The budget vividly illustrates the size of the unexpected fiscal windfall from the China boom.................But aside from the resources sector, the economy is not running on all cylinders, particularly outside Western Australia. It grew by a sub-standard 2.5 per cent in the financial year now ending. And export volumes have grown by only 0.6 per cent a year since 2001, compared with the 20-year average of 5.9 per cent. That is, the economy has hit speed limits to growth. The manna is coming almost exclusively from the higher prices China and other markets are prepared to pay for our mineral resources. And it is only four years or so since Mr Costello was warning that the ageing population could require much more government spending, and the taxes to pay for it.


While the Treasurer is rightly celebrating his tax cuts and increased welfare spending, this budget does not do as much as is required to keep economic growth strong. In particular it does not tackle infrastructure capacity constraints and shortages of skilled workers. Certainly there is more money for major freight roads. But the antiquated rail system receives just $270 million for new work – little more than a third of what Canberra intends to spend on improving the Hume Highway. And in an example of politics as usual, Mr Costello ducked damaging the Government's relationship with the road freight industry by cancelling a planned increase in the charge heavy vehicles pay. While the federal public service is becoming more bloated, the Government has not tackled the skilled labour shortages that business warns impede growth. While the Treasurer announced $2 million for a training college for clowns, he has no new plan to expand the job-generating skills of Australia's workforce, especially the 500,000-plus unemployed. Mr Costello also ducked the opportunity for real reform to our ramshackle tax system, especially the $10 billion or so of selective concessions that could be cut to fund a more substantial reduction in rates. And while more money will be spent on assisting families, effective marginal tax rates still punish people on social security, clawing back most of what extra they earn.


----------



## twojacks28 (11 May 2006)

the government has invested for the future. what do you call investing in roads the murray darling river etc. if you dont call that investment for the future what do you. also they put $10 Billion away for next years budget aswell!!!


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 May 2006)

The investment in roads is of questionable value, that's my main gripe with the government not investing in the future. 

Given all that is known about faltering oil discovery rates, the commodities boom and climate change it seems silly to invest in additional road capacity which is ultimately needed only due to long distance freight and then have to build a major rail system to replace it. It would be a lot cheaper to simply build the rail network now and not spend on the roads apart from maintenance of existing capacity. And doing so would avoid the economic shock in the years between road freight becomming expensive (or out of the question altogether) and the rail network coming online with a relatively small loss compared to road investment if the oil / commodites boom does crash permanently. A good risk/reward ration in favour of rail but the government chooses road.

The decision to invest in roads looks very much like a decision made assuming that the past will continue into the future when the very basis of that, cheap oil, is being undermined as part of the commodities boom on which the budget is based. If commodity prices continue to rise then road freight over long distances makes little sense. If commodity prices fall then the bottom line falls out of the budget. Lose either way but if we invested in rail instead then that overcomes the risk that the commodties boom continues.

Infrastructure is only valuable if it serves a purpose. There's no point building roads if traffic isn't going to increase. How would an increase in long distance highway traffic be fuelled? It seems that the government either has no real knowledge on the subject (quite possible) or is choosing to ignore it (likely IMO).

Those who make the big profits from long term investment are those who see what's coming rather than assuming that the past will continue into the future. Eg those who bought oil stocks in the late 1990's or gold in 2001 as opposed to those who believed the Nasdaq would never stop rising.

Another point I could raise is how many billion $ have been set aside for engineering works to protect Australian cities and towns from the effects of a rising sea level? Has the cost even been calculated? "Billion" could well be the wrong unit of measure for this, "trillion" might be more appropriate. Or on more conventional thinking, how much is being set aside to be spent to boost the economy during the next recession?


----------



## rederob (11 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> the government has invested for the future. what do you call investing in roads the murray darling river etc. if you dont call that investment for the future what do you. also they put $10 Billion away for next years budget aswell!!!



twojacks
The word "bias" comes to mind when *you * regard the budget as having an eye on the future.
The budget was a wasted opportunity from a money-laden-drunk without a clue! Although he did reward the rich.
Pity the pensioners; aged or disabled.
What about skills formation?
Or border security?
Or a national energy policy?
How about research and development?
I won't go on.
The budget was a shocker.
More opportunities missed by a government that repeatedly shows no concern for our least well off, nor our brightest.


----------



## twojacks28 (11 May 2006)

rednob that is the biggest load of cra* i have ever heard. i dont no how many times i have to explain it. the rich didnt get massive tax cuts. they got the same tax cuts as the lower income earners. and the middle income earners didn't get such a tax cut as they got the biggest last year. for your information rednob it is not a bad thing if you have been able to become wealthy. why should people who have made more money then others pay more tax? that is unfair. and you said something about border security. well the government spent plent this year on national and border security!! maybe you were sleeping during the budget presentation. also you can mprove and upgrade everyting every year! it is not possible. thats why they mix it up every year to cover all aspects of the australian economy. how come in most newspapers and most experts are saying this is one of the best budgets ever??? maybe rednob you are not looking at the whole thing and are just focusing on things which they have given money to but from your opinion obviosuly not enough. 

and to the person who posted above rednob. investing in the infrastructure of roads is a wise decision as the population increases more cars will be on the road therefore improving roads is vital.


----------



## GreatPig (11 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> the rich didnt get massive tax cuts. they got the same tax cuts as the lower income earners.



The amount of the income tax cut varies, but someone on $150,000 pa (excluding super) gets the maximum percentage tax cut, with their annual tax bill dropping by about 11.5%.

By comparison, someone on $50,000 gets about a 4.7% cut in their tax bill, and someone on $500,000 gets a 6% cut. Anyone earning $21,600 pa or less gets no tax cut at all.

GP


----------



## bvbfan (11 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> the rich didnt get massive tax cuts. they got the same tax cuts as the lower income earners. and the middle income earners didn't get such a tax cut as they got the biggest last year.




No comment from me but I do post this and anyone can draw their own conclusions




It does make my decision easier, back to part time work for me


----------



## rederob (11 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> rednob that is the biggest load of cra* i have ever heard. i dont no how many times i have to explain it. the rich didnt get massive tax cuts. they got the same tax cuts as the lower income earners. and the middle income earners didn't get such a tax cut as they got the biggest last year. for your information rednob it is not a bad thing if you have been able to become wealthy. why should people who have made more money then others pay more tax? that is unfair. and you said something about border security. well the government spent plent this year on national and border security!! maybe you were sleeping during the budget presentation. also you can mprove and upgrade everyting every year! it is not possible. thats why they mix it up every year to cover all aspects of the australian economy. how come in most newspapers and most experts are saying this is one of the best budgets ever??? maybe rednob you are not looking at the whole thing and are just focusing on things which they have given money to but from your opinion obviosuly not enough.
> 
> and to the person who posted above rednob. investing in the infrastructure of roads is a wise decision as the population increases more cars will be on the road therefore improving roads is vital.



twojacks
You say what you want - I said only that the money went to those with most money already: Can you prove the opposite?
Border security spending is a joke - the US budget allocated AU$10b - but look closely at where our few extra dollars will go http://www.budget.gov.au/2006-07/bp2/download/bp2_expense.pdf
...and you reckon we are OK? Ahem.
twojacks
Unlike you, I looked at what the budget did/does, and *what it did not do*.
It was a budget of classic missed opportunities for the people as a whole, but a great opportunity for the Coalition to carry its largesse into next year's election promises.
I can't explain your inability to grasp the big picture as I don't know how short sighted you are.
But to give more money to *haves * and forget the *have nots * is not a fair way to spend our taxes, unless you plan to take your money to the grave.
As for national infrastructure projects, why not have a look at the gridlock problems faced in south est Queensland, and tell me how much was allocated in the Budget to resolve that problem.

By the way, for those wondering about the extra money on border security, most is being allocated to run detention centres ( a very forward looking approach indeed).

twojacks, come clean and tell us which branch of the Liberal party you are attached to.


----------



## twojacks28 (11 May 2006)

you must look at it in detail as it is the percentages over the years which you compare. this year it evens out as different groups get different extras. must go cant explain in more detail.


----------



## twojacks28 (11 May 2006)

also before i go it is the state governments responsibility to fix those roads. the government just gives money to the major projects and to the state governments which they use wherever they like. also the higher income earners already pay more tax then others. that is why that get more back in percentage but in the end it equals out as other get familiy benefits, super etc.  and for the record i am not short sighted however i wouldnt be supprised if you were.


----------



## rederob (11 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> ....  and for the record i am not short sighted however i wouldnt be supprised if you were.



A stunning defence!
I see you realised you were on thin ice - due to the Kyoto protocol and Australia's adherence, no doubt.
I checked my prescription and it is definitely long sightedness that I suffer: 
It's a terrible affliction - being able to see further ahead than the average punter!


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> and to the person who posted above rednob. investing in the infrastructure of roads is a wise decision as the population increases more cars will be on the road therefore improving roads is vital.



More cars maybe but they won't be travelling very far without fuel. Even the Australian oil industry has acknowledged (this week) that the falling production of oil in Australia will see the Current Account deficit DOUBLE over the coming decade even if oil prices remain constant in nominal terms. A Current Account deficit at 12% of GDP? Not for long...

Given that the oil situation is similar internationally and with the growth of China etc it's hard to see oil prices remaining constant or falling over the long term unless the economy falls in a hole. If that happens then bye bye commodities boom and budget surplus.

If we're going to invest in transport then it would make a lot more sense to invest in something which will still be useful over the long term. 

I'm not sure about the other states but, to give an example, the Tasmanian Main Line railway opened in 1876. It's still running today and only now, after 130 years of service, has limited capacity finally become a problem. With a bit of modernisation and maintenance it will still be running in another 130 years and of course it could be electrified if need be. Trains will run perfectly well on firewood if fuel really becomes a problem.

Likewise the Moorina hydro-electric power station (Tas) is 100 years old this year and still running fine. Even the Snowy Hydro scheme has been operating since 1955 (fully operational since 1975) and it's nowhere near worn out yet. We have more than enough undeveloped resources to build the equivalent of another Snowy (spread across several locations) if we wanted to. Given the greenhouse and water issues it would make a lot of sense.

By comparisson, roads fall apart relatively quickly, are far less safe than rail (one train accident is headline news and uncommon whereas people die on the roads practically every day) and needs a constant supply of increasingly expensive oil and endless maintenance. It's an investment which comes with a large ongoing liability. Meanwhile, we continue to reap the rewards of the efforts of past generations which built the various state rail systems, water supply systems, the Tasmanian and Snowy hydro-electric schemes and so on which require relatively little ongoing expenditure to be kept in good order for decades if not centuries to come.


----------



## son of baglimit (11 May 2006)

oh well joe - it looks like this thread has been vandalised - shut it down....next.........


----------



## Rafa (12 May 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> More cars maybe but they won't be travelling very far without fuel.




Agree 100%... When oil becomes either extinct or prohibitively expensive, the best way for transportation is by a major electrified rail network linking cities and town in Australia.... Electricity can be generated from Coal (which we have hundreds of years of cheap supply), nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc, etc...

Trucks can still be used for local transportation, i.e. from the rail yard to the super markets.

We will no longer be hostage to the price of oil, and no longer feel the effects of inflation as a result of transportation costs going thru the roof...

Same thing with high speed networks, i can see a time where the CBD office block is a thing of the past... I am sure most of us could easily work from home, and maybe have face to face team meetings once/twice a week... But the key for this is high speed data networks, to allow file sharing, video conferencing, etc...

Australia is a lucky country, but this years budget to me, is nothing but dumb. Instead of future proofing us, we've just all been given more money to spend on plasma TV's.... yippee....


----------



## bullmarket (12 May 2006)

> Originally Posted by Smurf1976
> More cars maybe but they won't be travelling very far without fuel.




I'm not convinced that in say 10-20 years time there will not be an alternative viable fuel........could be ethanol, electricity, a combination of different sources.....who knows.

With our increasing national population I can't see the need for private transport over long distances diminishing at all from here on, so my gut feeling is that in 10-20 years time there will be more cars on the roads than there are now............especially with our ever increasing ageing population doing more and more laps around Australia  

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (12 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> I'm not convinced that in say 10-20 years time there will not be an alternative viable fuel........could be ethanol, electricity, a combination of different sources.....who knows.




money needs to be allocated to finding a viable alternative. The govt shouldn't just sit back and assume that something will come up to solve the problem. I'm not saying the govt should be solely responsible for this, but they need to play a part in it by providing funds for research, etc. 



			
				bullmarket said:
			
		

> With our increasing national population I can't see the need for private transport over long distances diminishing at all from here on, so my gut feeling is that in 10-20 years time there will be more cars on the roads than there are now............especially with our ever increasing ageing population doing more and more laps around Australia
> 
> cheers
> 
> bullmarket




Of course there will be more cars on the in the future if there isn't a viable alternative to using a car. If decent rail infrastructure was put in place, we may just find that people would use it more than their car, especially if we are still relying on increasingly expensive oil to fuel them with.


----------



## bullmarket (12 May 2006)

Hi professor_frink 

re:



> If decent rail infrastructure was put in place, we may just find that people would use it more than their car, especially if we are still relying on increasingly expensive oil to fuel them with.




I'm not saying that improvements to rail infrastructure can't or shouldn't be made - but even if they are, *personally I still want to able to go where I want, when I want and not be totally restricted to the times and destinations available in some form of public transport * - hence I seriously doubt we will ever get to the stage where people will use rail transport more than cars.

And I'm also not assuming that any new fuel technology will necessarly be first developed here in Australia - maybe it will, may be it won't...time will tell 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## professor_frink (12 May 2006)

Bullmarket,
why should we wait for someone else to do it? We are currently in a financial position where we could, so IMO we should be.
Instead of researching alternate fuels and building rail infrastructure, they are spending money upgrading highways so that baby boomers can drive around the country in their 4WDS towing caravans around chewing up more oil, and then on top of that, they give people a tax cut to help people put more fuel in their cars!

There will always be some people, like yourself, who for whatever reason choose to drive everywhere, but like smurf said before, we could be building up rail infrastructure to at least improve the way we freight goods around the country(reducing our reliance on oil somewhat). Could you imagine the improvement on our roads and air quality if there were only half as many trucks driving around?


----------



## twojacks28 (12 May 2006)

the government has given money to inprove railway infrastructure. also the foreign debt is not the governments responsibility. almost all of the debt is from the rivate sector, for example the major banks and mining giants such as rio and bhp. it has nothing to do with the governemnt. the debt which labor left is now gone the government doesnt owe a cent. all 96billion is gone.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> the government has given money to inprove railway infrastructure. also the foreign debt is not the governments responsibility. almost all of the debt is from the rivate sector, for example the major banks and mining giants such as rio and bhp. it has nothing to do with the governemnt. the debt which labor left is now gone the government doesnt owe a cent. all 96billion is gone.



twojacks
you forgot to tell us something else...
Costello is the tooth fairy, and...
and
....and
little Johnny is Santa

Oh, by the way, next time you look at Commonwealth Government securities, don't forget that they owe creditors around $50b.
Doesn't sit well with your  







> the government doesnt owe a cent



 assertion, so maybe hide it so nobody will notice.


----------



## bullmarket (12 May 2006)

Hi rederob

re:



> Oh, by the way, next time you look at Commonwealth Government securities, don't forget that they owe creditors around $50b.
> Doesn't sit well with your
> 
> Quote:
> ...





you seem to have extracted only part of a sentence out of context from 2jacks28's post and twisted it into saying something he didn't.

Imo he was clearly referring to the $96b foreign debt left over from Labor which incurred interest payments and was not referring to money owed to creditors which I assume does not incur interest especially if paid on time.

It appears to me that you are implying that Costello's claim that the gov't is foreign debt free is not true.

So in order to verify whether your implication is correct or not I have forwarded a screen dump of your posts along with your name you included in an email to me some time ago to my uncle at the ATO who can then either verify your implication himself or pass your concerns over to one of his mates over at Treasury for verification.  Maybe someone will contact you to confirm that the gov't is in fact debt free 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Rafa (12 May 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> Bullmarket,
> Could you imagine the improvement on our roads and air quality if there were only half as many trucks driving around?




Exactly, get the big trucks off the road, then the roads we have will be more than adqueate to service our private transport needs, and cost lot less to maintain due to the reduction of the weight of traffic...  plus arguably some safety improvements.


----------



## bullmarket (12 May 2006)

Hi rafa

yes agree 

I'm all for spending on infrastructure for the reasons you posted and reducing the number of trucks on the roads and the pollution they create but I'm still not convinced that spending on infrastrucure will ever lead to a situation where the general public will use rail, for example, more than their cars.

As I said earlier I will always want to travel *where I want when I want * and not be totally restricted to the limitations of any public transport 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Rafa (12 May 2006)

fully agree Bullmarket...
the Car, and private transport is simply not going to go away...

so how about having the best of both worlds... if you permit me to indulge in a bit of fantasy here...

I drive a lot around country due to work, and I have been thinking of this a fair while...

Imagine instead of the intercity highways, we had intercity railways, dual track, drop off and entry (via diversion) point at every town the rail goes thru... (or every 30kms or so)

Then, you place single carriage electrified rail carts (fully automatic offcourse) and you drive your car onto them, say in Adelaide, pick the destination drop off point, (say Port Pirie) and it joins onto the main rail network, takes you to the town you want to go, and you drive off...

so still have the car, but your journey has been made lot less tiring and hell of a lot safer, in your private rail cart...

whilst i admit, this is pie in the sky stuff for the private user, i can see this work quite well in the goods transport industry...

anyway, just a random idea i had...
feel free to tell me i'm an idiot for my silly idea...


----------



## professor_frink (12 May 2006)

that sounds good rafa, but I'd prefer to wait for a few more years until the back to the future flying car that runs on banana peels and cans of pepsi  

And I don't wanna hear anyone tell me that it was just a movie and will never happen. WE WILL HAVE THOSE CARS SOON!!!


----------



## Rafa (12 May 2006)

i'm waiting for the teleporters...!


----------



## professor_frink (12 May 2006)

hmmmmmmmm- flying car or teleporter? tough question. Think I'll stick with the back to the future car, but only if it has the time travelling capabilities.
That way I could travel back in time and benefit from bronte's perfect hindsight calls from her 'trading the spi' thread- I'd be rich!


----------



## Rafa (12 May 2006)

thats a dangerous move Prof.... meddling around with history and time line...

u know, pararell universe, action and reaction, cause and effect... Dr Who won't be too happy with you...


----------



## rederob (12 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi rederob
> So in order to verify whether your implication is correct or not I have forwarded a screen dump of your posts along with your name you included in an email to me some time ago to my uncle at the ATO who can then either verify your implication himself or pass your concerns over to one of his mates over at Treasury for verification.  Maybe someone will contact you to confirm that the gov't is in fact debt free



I look forward to the reply.
The fact is that Treasury notes and bonds are on issue, are in the tens of billions, and attract interest/yield payments.
The Labor debt legacy - ie when Howard was elected 10 years ago - is mired in accounting controversy.  I tell my accountant that we can't make a profit, and he makes that happen. Mysteriously all that money I have now turns into debts of various descriptions - like magic.
Folk are very confused about economic terms.
The government (Costello yesterday) said we have no foreign debt.
I suspect he meant we have some foreign debt, but that we also have credits that outweigh the debt.
I can't see that "debt" is bad.  We all seem to have debt.
The question of "risk" is more important, and that implies ability to repay the debt.
The US does this by printing more money, then lending more of it out, over and over again.
We don't.
Our dollar will continue to rise against the greenback.
Non-government foreign debt continues to increase, and the Coalition has not been able to turn the tide.
Moreover, a large part of our debt will be due to energy (oil) import costs in future years, and this quantum will increase every year for the foreseeable future.
As I posted earlier, we have no national energy policy that makes sense.  The budget should have upped the ante on renewable energy purchasing mandates - 2% of total is not good enough.
The Budget missed many opportunities to make its mark on our nation, and has only superannuation reforms as a redeeming feature on my score card.


----------



## twojacks28 (12 May 2006)

rednob you obviously cant read as i was talking about the debt that the labor government left to the liberal government. renob you ovbiously have something against the liberal party and im guessing you are a member of the labor party. as i said foreign debt has nothing to do with the federal government. it is the private sector who runs a up the debt amount each year!


----------



## bullmarket (12 May 2006)

no problem rederob 

The feedback I have received confirms the gov't is debt free as stated by Peter Costello 

They have your name that you gave me and a copy of your posts and if you think Costello has been lying then that is fine by me but then again I'm not the one you need to convince 

good luck 

bullmarket


----------



## Julia (12 May 2006)

If I can be forgiven for diverting the thread  from its current focus on government and private debt, I'd be really interested to get some feedback on the following view of the budget.

Talking about the  Budget with a group of friends today, we all agreed that we would have preferred to have done without the tax cuts and seen that total amount (how many billion?) put into, e.g. development of new water infrastructure which is one of the greatest problems facing at least Qld and NSW today, aged care, the training of new doctors and nurses, and expansion of the hospital system.  (Yes, I know hospitals and health generally are supposed to be the responsibility of the States, but in view of the stuff up at least Qld has made in this regard, there seems to be a case for the Federal government at least taking  some sort of proprietary interest in the running of Health).

For most of us the tax cuts don't represent a huge improvement to our basic budget, but just think what a difference that total amount could make to something for the common good.

To be fair, none of us coming to this conclusion are in the position of  still having a mortgage to pay off, or for even younger people, trying to save for a deposit for a house, so our attitudes may be quite correctly seen as rather arrogant from the point of view of a younger person.  This is definitely not intended, and I'm immensely sympathetic towards young people trying to pay off HECS fees, save for a home and do all the other things like travel and generally just have a life.

I'm just wondering if any others share the view that the budget was politically expedient but just so focused on individuals rather than on building a better and more inclusive society.  I feel particularly for the really poor, the unemployed, disabled and sick.  There is no concern shown for them.

Julia


----------



## rederob (12 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> rednob you obviously cant read as i was talking about the debt that the labor government left to the liberal government. renob you ovbiously have something against the liberal party and im guessing you are a member of the labor party. as i said foreign debt has nothing to do with the federal government. it is the private sector who runs a up the debt amount each year!



twojacks
The present government sold major assets to the tune of $46b to retire debt, and *taxed us the rest * to reduce the *government * component of debt.
Is that clever?
Is that good economic management?
Maybe.
The average net debt to GDP ratio of the countries in the OECD for 2006 is estimated to be 47.5 per cent, and I don't see OECD nations going down the gurgler.
A fallacy of selling major assets to reduce national debt is that they actually contribute to national revenues: So selling them off means we forego those revenue streams forever.
But government debt has only ever been a component of total debt.
And decisions of government impact significantly on how our private sector operates.
If you are suggesting that government policy has no impact on foreign debt then you should read early speeches from Howard and Costello that suggest the opposite.
You should be asking what the government is doing to reduce foreign debt: What policies is it putting in place, apart from forced savings via superannuation, or the Future Fund?
Or you should be wondering what is giving rise to ever increasing levels of foreign debt, and how that impacts on our economy.
Are you at all curious as to why our foreign debt is increasing markedly despite the best performance of our commodities sector in history?
Or are you suggesting the government should not worry about non-government debt at all?
It is a curious dichotomy that the Treasurer is so keen to have no government debt, but does nothing about foreign debt.

btw, not only am I not a member of the Labor Party, I don't think they have had my first preference for about 20 years - at federal or state levels


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi rafa
> 
> yes agree
> 
> ...



The existing roads should be more than adequate for private travel if we take the long distance freight off them. The budget isn't about spending a fortune on urban roads etc which are largely used by private motorists. Rather, it is about adding capacity to long distance bulk freight corridors for which rail is a direct alternative with far lower ongoing (permanent) liabilities and already able to be electrified in most cases rather than relying on oil that may or may not be available.

Another way to look at it is to say that one way to become wealthy is to earn more money. That will work for some but IMO making better use of the money you already have (saving and then investing it) is a far more sustainable solution. Likewise making better use of existing roads by shifting freight to rail (or in some cases sea) is likely a more sustainable option.


----------

