# Stimulus package effects gone - Harvey Norman



## MrBurns (20 January 2009)

It's like the stimulus package never happened: Harvey Norman
From ABC Website.

HAHAhahaha Who would have guessed ?
Gee we didnt see this coming




> Gerry Harvey: 'The Government may have been better off keeping the stimulus money'
> 
> One of Australia's biggest stores says it appears the effects of the Government's cash handouts may have worn off for the retail sector.
> 
> ...


----------



## pacestick (20 January 2009)

he wasnt weeping in december incidentally he  needs to look at his basic model Im in retail and our sales nationally are still up about 10 to 15 %


----------



## pacestick (20 January 2009)

Looks like we are getting another one any way Gerry must own the alp to get that sort of response so quickly

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24936476-462,00.html


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 January 2009)

pacestick said:


> Looks like we are getting another one any way Gerry must own the alp to get that sort of response so quickly
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24936476-462,00.html




Maybe he *nudge, nudge, wink, wink* furnished the Krudd's gummint lodgings, 500 days no payment, no interest. 

"GO Hardly Normal... [size=+1]GO![/size]"


----------



## Bushman (20 January 2009)

Time to send sex toys to every Australian household - that should stimulate things a bit if money ain't working?


----------



## Nyden (20 January 2009)

He had better not hand out a thousand dollars again -  or, at least include me this time 

 ... money well spent that was, straight into the pokies and drugs


----------



## prawn_86 (20 January 2009)

Nyden said:


> He had better not hand out a thousand dollars again -  or, at least include me this time
> 
> ... money well spent that was, straight into the pokies and drugs  G




Yes it was laughable that those with heaps of kids get heaps of cash, yet those at uni trying to better themselves (and who will probably be paying more in tax later) got nothing


----------



## investorpaul (20 January 2009)

The problem with K Rudds economic stimulus package is that it is seen by many as a one off wind fall ie yay I have $1,000 ill go buy a TV. This is great in the short term as it lifts sales, probably even more so than the inital $1,000 (or whatever amount recieved). Although the problem then eventuates when the $1,000 disappears the people go back to the same situation ie struggling to pay bills and reduced spending levels combined with the threat of unemployment.

If we compare K Rudds package (aimed at short term spending) to Obama's plan which includes investment in hospitals, schools and tax cuts (long term solutions) it is clear what is the better option.

Where one provides an inital boost which many help maintain employment levels in the retail industry for a couple of months the other is creating jobs across a number of industries and decreasing the burden on everyday people which will last many years.

The size of the stimulus package is also laughable, Howard regularly handed out tax cuts in the vicinity of $20 to $40 billion a year, for a number of years. In an economy worth between $800 bn and $1trn a $10.4bn package is like a drop in the ocean. Other countries ie Uk, US are puting well over 10% of GDP into their stimulus packages and although economic conditions are not as bad in Aust (yet!) the Australian government should be serious about this and aim for a package of at least 2.5 to 5% of GDP.


----------



## investorpaul (20 January 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Yes it was laughable that those with heaps of kids get heaps of cash, yet those at uni trying to better themselves (and who will probably be paying more in tax later) got nothing




I can directly relate to this, I work full time (for just above minimum wage), whilst also studying full time University via correspondence. 

What are my plans over the next couple of years? To save up a deposit for a house/unit, invest in the stock market, complete my degree and work. All of which stimulate the economy. 

The problem is I have no kids, I'm not on the dole and I live at home (to save money) so the stimulus package does nothing for me. In fact the doubling of the first home buyers grant (which i wont benefit from as I will not buy in the next 6 months) is artifically proping up house prices, especially in the lower price brackets (first home owners).

Of greater benefit would be to scrap all these hand outs (first home buyers, $1,000 for kids) and either directly invest in infrastructure to bring his country up to standards or hand out tax cuts and let me decide how I utilise my economic benefit


----------



## z8ball (20 January 2009)

God, it's painful to hear the same carping and whinging about poor bugger me I didn't get my $1000. I got it. I own four businesses and my wife owns one. We have two kids and I crazy lifestyle to boot. 

Neither I nor my wife have ever collected any welfare before however this just showed up in our account. I guess the government keeps good records of babies!

Anyway, my point is STOP stereotyping anyone who got the payment as not as industrious as yourself or as productive to society as yourself. I believe that our family is extremely productive.

Also, as for going to university to better yourself... who subsidises your university tuition fees or are you using a full fee paying place 

Better get back to pissing it up against the wall and playing some pokies.


----------



## Nyden (20 January 2009)

z8ball said:


> God, it's painful to hear the same carping and whinging about poor bugger me I didn't get my $1000. I got it. I own four businesses and my wife owns one. We have two kids and I crazy lifestyle to boot.
> 
> Neither I nor my wife have ever collected any welfare before however this just showed up in our account. I guess the government keeps good records of babies!
> 
> ...




The point is that no one should have received it. The question, is what makes one person a better target as to aid the economy over another? I would have bought a new TV too, so what makes *you* with your obvious lack of need (owning 5 businesses) more entitled to $1000 over a struggling student?

My brother is essentially in the exact position I am, except that he is classed as dependant. He received the money, I did not - because I've been working for years and am independent.

I guess I just do not see the rationale, nor the logic of giving money out on a per-child basis. It's absolutely absurd - especially when Rudd was actually encouraging people as to spend it on frivolities over bills! A new plasma does not help children, a new PlayStation does not help children! The *only* reasoning I can see for his selected demographic - is popularity grabbing nonsense. This pisses me right off.

Let it be known that this is not sour grapes, as a thousand dollars is quite meagre to me (despite being a student) - but rather, it's the principal of the thing. I guess I'm just upset that our surplus is being used to grab votes.


----------



## investorpaul (20 January 2009)

z8ball said:


> God, it's painful to hear the same carping and whinging about poor bugger me I didn't get my $1000. I got it. I own four businesses and my wife owns one. We have two kids and I crazy lifestyle to boot.
> 
> Neither I nor my wife have ever collected any welfare before however this just showed up in our account. I guess the government keeps good records of babies!
> 
> ...




I understand your point, and its important not to stereotype, hell even my parents got a $1,000 cause my brothers under 18. What I dont like about the package is that it was sold to the public as a way to help "save" the economy, which it clearly will not do. It will only help in the short term.

Further to that my point is, if the money is only being provided to boost short term spending, why only give it to certain groups of people? By paying taxes you are directly giving someone else a $1,000 which when given as a lump sum could easily be spend on a TV, etc. As a tax payer we have a right to question how taxes are distributed. I would much rather my taxes are distributed in the form of a tax cut to low income earners, so they get the benefit in little amounts each week rather than a one off bonus to blow.

I get your point about Uni fees, however you could extend that to public schools, hospitals, etc, etc. So if that where your arguement then the government should provide no services and therefore no welfare, no bonuses and no benefits as the basis of your point is that governments should no "subsidise".


----------



## shaunQ (20 January 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Yes it was laughable that those with heaps of kids get heaps of cash, yet those at uni trying to better themselves (and who will probably be paying more in tax later) got nothing




Ah... you mean a Uni student that would have been lucky to have paid several thousand in tax. And you want a hand-out... 

It went to FAMILIES and PENSIONERS.

You are young, have no dependents, and can have an income if you choose, unlike pensioners.



> What are my plans over the next couple of years? To save up a deposit for a house/unit, invest in the stock market, complete my degree and work. All of which stimulate the economy.




None of that stimulates (Other than working - one day?) .In other words your not spending at all - your hoarding your money - which is the EXACT REASON you -and your kind - didn't receive the money.

Families and Pensioners on the other hand spent most of it.

Yeah - maybe 20% or more went into gambling and alcohol. But this is spending regardless and still adds to our economy. Who says Harvey Norman is a better company to receive the wealth than Aristocrat?


----------



## Julia (20 January 2009)

Editorial from Qld Sunday Mail:



> The Federal Government's 10 billion economic stimulus package was a bold move and quite clearly kick started retail spending.  But, as widely predicted and feared, it would seem the money has not been spent entirely wisely.
> 
> Latest revenue figures from Queensland's Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing indicate that pokies were a big winner from the Commonwealth handout.
> 
> ...




As a tax payer this really, really irritates me.
That $10 billion could have done so much good if spent on much needed infrastructure.

Re suggestion of tax cuts:  the poorest people don't pay any tax, so all the tax cuts so far have not benefited that section of our society.

And, quite apart from the actual waste of the money, the Prime Minister's urging to people to go out and Spend, Spend, Spend just gives the wrong message to a population who have done this for far too long anyway.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (20 January 2009)

100% agree Julia.


----------



## MrBurns (20 January 2009)

Julia said:


> Editorial from Qld Sunday Mail:
> 
> As a tax payer this really, really irritates me.
> That $10 billion could have done so much good if spent on much needed infrastructure.
> ...





I completely agree, the problem is most politicians know nothing about economics yet they have control over billions of our dollars. all that stimulus did was well..............nothing, just made people feel good for 5 minutes and it has to be paid back anyway.

The sooner rates hit zero and KRudd blows everything we have and borrows more to our credit limit the better at least we will have hit rock bottom and can work our way up again hopefully with a new Govt that has more sense.


----------



## bigt (20 January 2009)

..anyone have a link to the parameters used to determine who received the $1000? We have a child, but did not receive anything - just interested (means tested?).


----------



## Julia (20 January 2009)

bigt said:


> ..anyone have a link to the parameters used to determine who received the $1000? We have a child, but did not receive anything - just interested (means tested?).




bigt, I understand it went to families who receive Family Tax Benefit A.
I don't know the criteria for this, but know not all people with children received the handout.
A phone call to Centrelink would clarify it for you.


----------



## nunthewiser (20 January 2009)

bigt said:


> ..anyone have a link to the parameters used to determine who received the $1000? We have a child, but did not receive anything - just interested (means tested?).




I didnt recieve squat either actually . so either that other dude pulling our legs or he not telling the full story

im going down to perth for the "ragamuffin " festival on saturday and geez i wouldnt mind 2k to blow on booze eccies and loose wimmin


----------



## CoffeeKing (20 January 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> im going down to perth for the "ragamuffin " festival on saturday




Whats the "ragamuffin" all about, and which saturday - The Long weekend - ?


----------



## nunthewiser (20 January 2009)

CoffeeKing said:


> Whats the "ragamuffin" all about, and which saturday - The Long weekend - ?




reggae festival .24th supreme court gardens , good line up m8 ,  http://www.raggamuffin.com.au/


----------



## prawn_86 (20 January 2009)

Nyden said:


> Let it be known that this is not sour grapes, as a thousand dollars is quite meagre to me (despite being a student) - but rather, it's the principal of the thing. I guess I'm just upset that our surplus is being used to grab votes.




Same story to me. Im in a much better position than most students, but why shouldn't i get it when i took time off to work and prove independence and pay tax...



shaunQ said:


> Ah... you mean a Uni student that would have been lucky to have paid several thousand in tax. And you want a hand-out...
> 
> You are young, have no dependents, and can have an income if you choose, unlike pensioners.




See point above about tax.

And yes i can work, i dont dispute pensioners getting it at all, they certainly need it more than me (generally). However my income is reduced by 50% for every $1 pre-tax i earn due to Centrelink, then i pay tax on that too, so for every $1 i earn the gov gets about 70%.... how that for a high tax rate...


----------



## shaunQ (20 January 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> And yes i can work, i dont dispute pensioners getting it at all, they certainly need it more than me (generally). However my income is reduced by 50% for every $1 pre-tax i earn due to Centrelink, then i pay tax on that too, so for every $1 i earn the gov gets about 70%.... how that for a high tax rate...




I think its a separate issue about student welfare though, which I agree sux. I remember going to Uni, unable to get AusStudy because of my parents, who weren't in anyway rich. But I could have quit anytime and got on the dole and received $400+ per fortnight instantly.

The same thing with tax rates happens to families, with increasing income comes decreasing family benefits.

I think it should have been based on receiving part B, not A which would have been fairer.

But you've admitted you didn't NEED it - you just WANTED it. There's a difference. (not to say that people that didn't get it - needed it.)


----------



## Sith1s (20 January 2009)

bigt said:


> ..anyone have a link to the parameters used to determine who received the $1000? We have a child, but did not receive anything - just interested (means tested?).




Hi Bigt, Part A is measured on the combined income of your parter and you.  The link that may be able to answer you question is....
http://www.facs.gov.au/Internet/FAO/FAO1.nsf/content/payments-ftba-get_ftba-income.htm


----------



## gfresh (20 January 2009)

(hmmm this thread seems to have gone far off topic)

I was at the local shopping centre over the weekend, and was a little surprised that it was almost as busy as just before xmas. So people seem to be spending on regular things.

Maybe Mr Gerry may be feeling it as people aren't buying so many "big ticket" items, but I think there is still plenty of general shopping and retail going on out there at the moment.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 January 2009)

gfresh said:


> Mr Gerry may be feeling it as people aren't buying so many "big ticket" items, but I think there is still plenty of shopping and retail going on.




Yeh, there is some non-empirical evidence floating around that people simply buy smaller items, rather than big ticket HVN items, during a recession.


----------



## Largesse (20 January 2009)

shaunQ said:


> I think its a separate issue about student welfare though, which I agree sux. I remember going to Uni, unable to get AusStudy because of my parents, who weren't in anyway rich. But I could have quit anytime and got on the dole and received $400+ per fortnight instantly.
> 
> The same thing with tax rates happens to families, with increasing income comes decreasing family benefits.
> 
> ...




So all the people that spent their payments at the local pub/club or at Harvey Norman NEEDED it?

You can't break this down to a need/want argument because you have the bloke at the top (Krudd) telling everyone to blow it on discretionary spending. 

What Prawn is (rightly) getting at, is in a Stimulus Package (note: Stimulus NOT Support), who sets the rules as to who will STIMULATE the economy more? Will a pension spend their payment any better on beer/wine and gambling than a student?


----------



## Trevor_S (20 January 2009)

z8ball said:


> God, it's painful to hear the same carping and whinging about poor bugger me I didn't get my $1000. I got it. I own four businesses and my wife owns one. We have two kids and I crazy lifestyle to boot.




Either your business are not making much money or you are committing fraud to hide income, as the $1000 "bonus" was means tested.  



z8ball said:


> Neither I nor my wife have ever collected any welfare before however this just showed up in our account. I guess the government keeps good records of babies!




My understanding is that to have received the bonus you must be receiving the Family Tax Benefit (FTB), which is welfare, if so, this brings into question your seemingly emphatic statement that 







z8ball said:


> Neither I nor my wife have ever collected any welfare "




Government spent some $20Millon adverting the concept, and bureaucratic bloat sees something like 20c in the dollar taken by bureaucracy to deliver 80c of service (ie the $10Billion spent needed $12.5Billion taken off the tax payer in the first place).  

The stimulus bonus was billed as an economic recovery aid when it was clearly no such thing.  Some would argue (myself included) that this was a poor use of tax payer money.


----------



## wonderrman (20 January 2009)

It was a stupid from the start anyone with half a brain could see that. I think lots of people would have decided to use it to pay off credit card debt as well.

It should have been used to fixe our roads and transport systems or put more beds in hospitals. At least we would have been able to see what the money was used for in ten years time.


----------



## Largesse (20 January 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> The stimulus bonus was billed as an economic recovery aid when it was clearly no such thing.  Some would argue (myself included) that this was a poor use of tax payer money.





too right, it was clearly a targeted hand out to strong labor demographics.


----------



## nomore4s (20 January 2009)

bigt said:


> ..anyone have a link to the parameters used to determine who received the $1000? We have a child, but did not receive anything - just interested (means tested?).




Also if you claim your family assistance - or whatever they call it - when you do your tax instead of a fortnightly payment that is when you will receive your $1000.


----------



## shaunQ (20 January 2009)

Largesse said:


> What Prawn is (rightly) getting at, is in a Stimulus Package (note: Stimulus NOT Support), who sets the rules as to who will STIMULATE the economy more? Will a pension spend their payment any better on beer/wine and gambling than a student?




I'm not saying the stimulus package was the best thing they could have done, but if the purpose of it is to give out a fairly substantial amount, in the hope of getting money passing through into the economy, because of the cost they would have needed to limit it to a segment of the community. The community has separate needs and you could probably divide it into:

a) Welfare recipients (can work, or partially)
b) Pensioners (can not work)
c) Families
d) Students
e) Others (working, either single or married with no dependents)

Now you can only pick 2. Who would you pick?



Largesse said:


> too right, it was clearly a targeted hand out to strong labor demographics.




Oh absolutely. What and Howard never played these games? just different winners this time around.

I wonder when that next package will come in... with an election in a year or so...


----------



## gfresh (20 January 2009)

or f) just do tax cuts, and everybody gets some benefit, rather than playing favourite to any one group..


----------



## prawn_86 (20 January 2009)

shaunQ said:


> Now you can only pick 2. Who would you pick?




Why pick only 2? Why not all at a lesser amount? Or why not none?


----------



## Fatcat (20 January 2009)

Should the success or failure of the stimulus package really be judged by the number of LCD's Gerry Harvey sells? Perhaps a better guage would be how many more pensioners were able to afford some decent meals for a month or 2.


----------



## Glen48 (20 January 2009)

Yesterday Wayne Swan was tell all he won't be pushed into any rash decisions, this Avo he is talking about the Mother of all Bail outs, what ever that will be.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 January 2009)

Glen48 said:


> Yesterday Wayne Swan was tell all he won't be pushed into any rash decisions, this Avo he is talking about *the Mother of all Bail outs*, what ever that will be.




*Phew!*

For a minute there I thought he might have gone for *the Grandmother*...



I suspect most of Hardly Normal's pain is currently being felt in the furniture side of things. I've been in the local store a couple of times for a browse (no buy - sorry Gerry - I'm gonna wait for the closing down sales ) over the last couple of weeks and although the electronics section seems to have a reasonable number of "lookers", the furniture section "smells like a dead dog". 



aj


----------



## MrBurns (20 January 2009)

Fatcat said:


> Should the success or failure of the stimulus package really be judged by the number of LCD's Gerry Harvey sells? .




Yes, Gerry Harvey is the litmus test of retailing, if he succeeds it's worked.

What a freeking stupid idea in the first place, anyone could see that was so temporary as to be useless, it only lasted over Christmas, now if KRudd decides to do that monthly for the next 3 years, it might actually work


----------



## Julia (20 January 2009)

gfresh said:


> or f) just do tax cuts, and everybody gets some benefit, rather than playing favourite to any one group..



gfresh, actually that's not true.  People with the lowest incomes, e.g. pensioners, don't pay tax unless they have other income which puts them over the $6000 tax free threshold.



prawn_86 said:


> Why pick only 2? Why not all at a lesser amount? Or why not none?



Or spend it on something useful like infrastructure where the benefit to the economy would be seen over a longer period of time, where it would provide jobs, and where we would have something to see for the money at the end.

The effect, if any, of this handout will have been so temporary that it's meaningless and imo represents a vote buying exercise more than anything else.




Glen48 said:


> Yesterday Wayne Swan was tell all he won't be pushed into any rash decisions, this Avo he is talking about the Mother of all Bail outs, what ever that will be.




Oh, God!


----------



## nomore4s (20 January 2009)

MrBurns said:


> What a freeking stupid idea in the first place, anyone could see that was so temporary as to be useless, it only lasted over Christmas, now if KRudd decides to do that monthly for the next 3 years, it might actually work




This is the problem with alot of the financial mess we are in now - short sighted policy and not enough planning for the future.

The phrase "short term pain for long term gain" seems to have been forgotten, in fact it is more like "short term gain for long term pain"


----------



## Nyden (20 January 2009)

Fatcat said:


> Should the success or failure of the stimulus package really be judged by the number of LCD's Gerry Harvey sells? Perhaps a better guage would be how many more pensioners were able to afford some decent meals for a month or 2.




As cold as it sounds, it's been marketed as a *Stimulus package* - not a _Feed the poor_ package. Pensioners, and welfare recipients are facing an entirely different problem as to what this was apparently supposed to be dealing with.


----------



## moXJO (20 January 2009)

I went in to the local Harvey Norman over Christmas and it was dead quiet. However JB Hifi was packed full- so people have adjusted their spending habits round here.

I would have liked to have seen the money be used on infrastructure, health, schools or investment into advancing green technologies. At least it would have been more productive then half a million hangovers and a few shopping splurges. I'm not sure if tax cuts will stimulate the economy much at this stage of the cycle. People know there is a financial crisis; the PM is constantly bemoaning the fact. And doing his best to race us into a deficit. 

While a deficit is not a bad thing, the manner in which we get there makes all the difference. And using the credit crunch as an excuse to throw OUR money around like water, and try any idea that seems plausible at the time needs to be addressed imo.

If anything business should be getting incentives to keep people in work. At least then we have a good flow of taxpayers instead of welfare recipients.


----------



## MrBurns (20 January 2009)

moXJO said:


> I went in to the local Harvey Norman over Christmas and it was dead quiet. However JB Hifi was packed full- so people have adjusted their spending habits round here.
> 
> I would have liked to have seen the money be used on infrastructure, health, schools or investment into advancing green technologies. At least it would have been more productive then half a million hangovers and a few shopping splurges. I'm not sure if tax cuts will stimulate the economy much at this stage of the cycle. People know there is a financial crisis; the PM is constantly bemoaning the fact. And doing his best to race us into a deficit.
> 
> ...




JB sell CD's etc low cost items and are a lot cheaper than HN in any case.

The rest of your post I agree with 100%


----------



## Tekwrek (15 June 2011)

Will the latest round of Stimulus solar panel cuts affect HN share price it seems that this guy is involved with everything.


----------



## sptrawler (15 June 2011)

Well worth resurecting this thread, could rename it "companies going down the gurgler despite the stimulus package" throwaway. 
I hope the Colorado workers used the $1000 to buy a t.v and took advantage of the $21,000 first home buyers to build a house to put it in.
I feel sorry for them because this government won't have any sympathy.


----------

