# Budget 2007 - what do YOU want from it?



## son of baglimit (2 April 2007)

last year i started a forum asking for input from contributors asking.....what they wanted to see in the upcoming budget. well that time is fast approaching, and so again i ask for comment.

whats on YOUR wish list ?

whats a REALISTIC and ACHIEVABLE positive for you ? 
(you meaning as an individual or a family - whoever you are investing for.)

what do you EXPECT from the budget thats good or bad for you ?


----------



## son of baglimit (2 April 2007)

*Re: BUDGET 2007 - what do YOU want from it ?*

here's the link to last year:

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3334


----------



## astroboydivx (2 April 2007)

The Treasurer will need to please us using delayed gratification rather than upfront payments. Upfront payments, whether they be immediate tax cuts or baby bonuses etc, will stimulate an already stretched economy and lead to higher interest rates due to inflation.

Costello is going to have to look at pleasing us through delayed gratification - a cutting of superannuation taxes on entry (last year it was on exit), a cut in capital gains tax for investments held longer than 5 years, more money into the future fund etc.

However it's also an election year so there will be big infrastructure annoucements, probably regarding the Pacific Highway, SE Queensland road networks etc. 

I wonder what they have up their sleeve regarding education and the environment...


----------



## doctorj (2 April 2007)

I don't want to see another penny go into the future fund.  It's a fund to pay government employee's superannuation - defined benefit liabilities that no business worth its salt have offered for years.  Companies have, for the most part, managed to successfully buy out their defined benefit liabilities and roll those members over to a defined contribution (and in doing so shift the risk from employer to employee).  Why hasn't/can't the government do the same? How do they get away with persisting with it?

I'd love to see the future fund's funds go towards a piece of income generating infrastructure for the good of all Australians (considering they are our tax dollars after all) - something like Labor's broadband plan would be great but not without its challenges.  Build the infrastructure, retain ownership within the fund and charge Telstra, Optus and all the wannabe telcos to have access to it.

Back on topic now though.  I liked the suggestion of the 5yr CGT discount, but I would have it restricted to neutral or income generating investments only, ruling out all those tax payers that get other tax payers to foot their bills through negative gearing from having access to even more benefits.  This would make investment in items that produce an economic benefit more attractive and help reduce the tax burden on us all.

I'd also like to see more money given to R&D and education.  As Paul Keating said, [SIZE=-1]we can no longer afford to be the[/SIZE] lucky country, we have to become the smart country.  Things should be put into place to encourage a culture of invention and innovation and there needs to be a process put in place to aid people commercialise ideas and if possible keep them (atleast in part) under Australian ownership - if Aussie tax payer dollars go to help develop them, Australia should reap some of the benefits of the end product.

Ultimately I'd love to see tax law simplified from the behemoth it is down to a few simple ideas.  This should help reduce the cost of collecting tax so they can charge less to begin with.  All tax does is shift the decision to spend a dollar from the people/companies to the government which is more-often-than-not much less efficient at allocating capital.  I understand this isn't likely this budget, or even under this government.
[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]


----------



## numbercruncher (2 April 2007)

Id like to see big capital injections into Enviromental projects,Water and Alternative Energy.

Id like to see the over inflated Realestate market punished, 10pc Interest rates would be fine thanks Mr Costello.


----------



## wayneL (2 April 2007)

I'm an unhappy customer; I want my money back.


----------



## billhill (3 April 2007)

Certainly would like to see more go to the environment. Also would like to see more spending in the areas of health and education. Would rather these then any tax cuts. Also wouldn't mind seeing a drop in the company tax rate.


----------



## macca (3 April 2007)

Indexation of income tax levels.

An Ozzie wide school syllabus, (in budget as would have to bribe the stupid states)

Ozzie wide water control of all interstate watercourses ( in the budget as would have to continue to bribe stupid states)

Funding for referendum at next election for republic, Q : do you want Oz to be a republic (Yes or No, no trick questions )


----------



## bel532 (3 April 2007)

doctorj said:


> I don't want to see another penny go into the future fund.  It's a fund to pay government employee's superannuation - defined benefit liabilities that no business worth its salt have offered for years.  Companies have, for the most part, managed to successfully buy out their defined benefit liabilities and roll those members over to a defined contribution (and in doing so shift the risk from employer to employee).  Why hasn't/can't the government do the same? How do they get away with persisting with it?
> 
> I'd love to see the future fund's funds go towards a piece of income generating infrastructure for the good of all Australians (considering they are our tax dollars after all) - something like Labor's broadband plan would be great but not without its challenges.  Build the infrastructure, retain ownership within the fund and charge Telstra, Optus and all the wannabe telcos to have access to it.
> 
> ...




I agree. I could never understand why public servants receive such a largesse that is not given to the public at large, except that, maybe, it ties in with the very generous super scheme enjoyed by the pollies. Although I have a vague recollection that Latham, during one of his brief lucid periods, forced the Federal Government to reduce these benefits for new members, but NOT for public servants. Why didn't they do both and why should they enjoy such benefits, at the public's expense, that are not available to the public at large?

Footnote. I understand that some of the large National companies also provided their employees with the benefit of an Unfunded Super scheme, but I dion't know if they still exist.


----------



## bel532 (3 April 2007)

son of baglimit said:


> last year i started a forum asking for input from contributors asking.....what they wanted to see in the upcoming budget. well that time is fast approaching, and so again i ask for comment.
> 
> whats on YOUR wish list ?
> 
> ...






Tax cuts, and more tax cuts!


----------



## clowboy (3 April 2007)

wayneL said:


> I'm an unhappy customer; I want my money back.




LOL.

Sounds good


----------



## Odduna (3 April 2007)

Proper tax reform is required in Australia, but it wont happen in an election year.

The future fund: if people like it or not, the liability will need to be paid.
Small bits each year is probably better. But the government is trying to put big amounts in now so the amount can be invested so less taxes have to go in paying it out later on. Pretty much what James Hardie did with the compensation fund. Get the charity to be tax free status, put a smaller amount into fund and hope the investment returns pay the liability. 

Note: i dont think the defined benefit fund for CSS and PSS is open to new employess since around 1 July 2005 or was it 2006.

To do a change over from the defined benefit fund to accumlation fund, the government will need the money to buy the public servants out. But i understand from their announcment back in 2005 they were looking into situation.

Anyway, enough said...
Fingers crossed for a wise and prudent budget.


----------



## Julia (3 April 2007)

Water infrastructure
Water infrastructure
Water infrastructure

Political will to act for the good of the people instead of personal self-aggrandisement.

I won't be holding my breath on either count.


----------



## chops_a_must (3 April 2007)

Julia said:


> Water infrastructure
> Water infrastructure
> Water infrastructure



But then you have to put up with country bumpkins and hicks complaining that "you've stolen my water" etc. etc.


----------



## bean (3 April 2007)

> Originally Posted by doctorj
> I don't want to see another penny go into the future fund. It's a fund to pay government employee's superannuation - defined benefit liabilities that no business worth its salt have offered for years. Companies have, for the most part, managed to successfully buy out their defined benefit liabilities and roll those members over to a defined contribution (and in doing so shift the risk from employer to employee). Why hasn't/can't the government do the same? How do they get away with persisting with it
> 
> 
> ...




Now if a private company did not put money into pay for super for its employees would they be breaking any laws....


----------



## billhill (3 April 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> Political will to act for the good of the people instead of personal self-aggrandisement.




Maybe we could swap howard for someone like bono or al gore.  If only this was an ideal world.....


----------



## doctorj (3 April 2007)

billhill said:


> Maybe we could swap howard for someone like bono or al gore.  If only this was an ideal world.....



I couldn't think of too many scarier ideas...


----------



## billhill (3 April 2007)

doctorj said:
			
		

> I couldn't think of too many scarier ideas...




LOL


----------



## chops_a_must (4 April 2007)

billhill said:


> Maybe we could swap howard for someone like bono or al gore.  If only this was an ideal world.....



Yeah, I doubt Bono would ever live here, he'd have to pay tax...


----------



## son of baglimit (4 May 2007)

less then a week to go and the usual pre-election assumptions are coming out - lower tax rates for middle australia (abolition of the 40% rate), increased family tax benefits, deductions or greater flexibility for child care expenses etc etc etc

nothing hinted for infrastructure spending, as many would like to see, but with a perceived labour shortage and benefits from such projects always years away, no pre-election govt would dream of such spending - it doesnt win enough votes. 

probably some more money plonked into the future fund, with warnings of what the greedy lefties would do if they ever got their fingers on it, but primarily it will be another 'family friendly' budget

so come on australia - keep breeding - to hell with the capacity to cope.


----------



## astroboydivx (5 May 2007)

Yeah pretty close now, Tuesday night I think...


----------



## Stan 101 (5 May 2007)

Seeing as the title made it clear we could be totally selfish on this one, I will be 

How about some freaking extra breaks for the singles out there? I'm not talking teens etc who are yet to get married. I'm talking of the ones who have tried that, been burned, had to start again, singles.
Not being a couple with dependants is definately a minority and from a financial point of view is hell.
1. Without a spouse, one can't put property in the name of the lowest earner... There are tonnes of these cases. It's harder to use trusts.. Basically you pay more CGT. Simple as that.
2. Baby freaking bonuses... What about a bonus for guys and girls who don't bring into the world a whole gaggle (what is the collective noun for a group of children??) of kids and welch on the limited and truly important social security.
3. What about rent/mortage assistance cos you live alone as your whole world just disappeared when the ex took off?
Damn it, I thought I'd be able to rant about this forever..

How about a better national road and rail service. Lets force the issue of interstate rail cartage.

I'm really keen on a canal being built from the Kimberleys to Southern NSW. Let us open up our great interior. If we turn the first sods this year, we can aim for completion in say, oh I don't know...year 2151... What a legacy???


I wish only big tax returns for all of you..


----------



## wayneL (5 May 2007)

I'm going to consumer affairs for a refund.

Goods do not match the sale description. What I thought was for the benefit of society as a whole is going is going straight int pork barrels and gravy trains... not to mention middle class welfare.

...and I'm p1ssed.

I want my money back!!


----------



## Julia (5 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> I'm going to consumer affairs for a refund.
> 
> Goods do not match the sale description. What I thought was for the benefit of society as a whole is going is going straight int pork barrels and gravy trains... not to mention middle class welfare.
> 
> ...




I'm with both Stan 101 and Wayne on this.  If I hear  once more Julia Gillard/Kevin Rudd utter the phrase "working families" as though only blue collar workers are deserving of any consideration whatsoever, I will spit.

And every time Mr Costello hands out yet more tax cuts I sigh in frustration. The amounts are too small to be really meaningful for any individuals (or "working **** families") but that same amount as a whole could create a huge difference to say, the health system, including mental health, or any number of large infrastructure projects.  How stupid to be giving people the equivalent ( in Amanda Vanstone's terms) of a milkshake and a cup of coffee when we may be running out of water.


----------



## marklar (6 May 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> How about some freaking extra breaks for the singles out there? I'm not talking teens etc who are yet to get married. I'm talking of the ones who have tried that, been burned, had to start again, singles.
> Not being a couple with dependants is definately a minority and from a financial point of view is hell.



How about less damn "rebates" and "bonuses" that make something like 1 in 3 Australians(*) dependent on Centrelink?
We're becoming a society that is very much reliant on milking the system for handouts and rebates from the Government, the tax law is so damn complex that it's almost impossible for anyone to do their own tax returns themselves.
Fix the problem of bracket-creep by pushing up the tax-free threshold to something sensible and avoid having to hand out most of the rebates and bonuses.  With a simpler tax system the costs of compliance and welfare are reduced and you can then sack some shiney-bums in the ATO & Centrelink.

m.

(*)Don't quote me on that figure


----------



## Stan 101 (6 May 2007)

Marklar, I'm now going to refer to you as "33.33 recurring."


----------



## noirua (6 May 2007)

An Island I lived on for two quite long periods has 5% income tax and 5% tax on goods we buy and no other taxes.
It would mean Australia having no army, airforce or navy. Cutting down police numbers by 75%. Having a Federal Government and no State Governments. Inviting foreign companies to register in Australia and pay no tax, providing they banked here.


----------



## ROE (6 May 2007)

Want all shares trading Capital Gain tax free in return I don't claim on capital lost


----------



## louie (6 May 2007)

1.Tax Threshold to be increased – say to $10,000

2. 30% tax rate increased to $120,000.

3. Stay at home mums who have given up their careers to look after the kids & who don’t use child care (rip off), to get a better deal this time around.

4. Capital gains tax formula lowered to 25% for any investment sold in the first year & lesser still on future years.

Is this asking too much?

Yeh I wish.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2007)

We have been reaping the rewards of our lack of proper investment through the water crisis in recent times. Much the same with transport too as the bottlenecks start to seriously cost the economy. And although it's somewhat hidden in the eyes of many, we've got much the same problem with land for housing. 

Next on the list is energy IMO. All the same mistakes are being made - rising demand, ageing infrastructure, not willing to invest enough and a determination to stop anyone who is.

Tax cuts? Only if they're directed specifically at encouraging investment in the things the country actually needs for the future. The last thing we need is the type of tax cuts that fuel inflation as we've already got more than enough of that.

With water, energy, transport it comes down to largely public investment. But with land for housing, it's nothing more than red tape standing in the way and it's time to not only remove it, but get rid of the very structure and thinking that put it there in the first place.

Land shortage? Nope. A shortage of government (council) permission to build on the land is what we've got. The legacy of years of incompetent town and other planning that, along with water, energy and so on, fails to grasp the basic notion that more people = more infrastructure and land required.

If we keep creating shortages of water, land, energy, transport and so on whilst ramping up the money supply and increasing the population then sooner or later it doesn't work. Either we get rampant price inflation or, if some form of price controls are imposed, physical shortage. We're seeing it now with land prices and physical shortages of water and to some extent transport. Energy's just around the corner and that'll do more damage than all the rest put together. Time to stop creating shortages...


----------



## krisbarry (7 May 2007)

louie said:


> 1.Tax Threshold to be increased – say to $10,000





Yes completely agree


----------



## hongwong (7 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> I'm an unhappy customer; I want my money back.




lol ...  We only wish ...  TAX cuts in CGT ! and TAX cuts.

all that rain that has fallen in melbourne and the catchments missed it all ...

I guess the gov. is blaming it on the clouds ......


----------

