Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Budget 2012 - Is the government hitting the carbon tax panic button?

Jump to new
drsmith said:
Having again walked away from earlier commitments, this budget is an act of desperation by Labor and only serves to further highlight their untrustworthyness.
Click to expand...

Well I believe that the current deficit will increase before the end of this financial year.

If a Federal Treasurer can come out and say he will have a surplus of $1.5 billion in 12 months, then increase the Commonwealth debt from 250 > 300 billion $'s, you would have to be suspicious. This fellow will try any thing. But then whats new?

The reason he gave "we have had some advice to insulate the current debt".
In layman's terms, he is saying if my estimates are incorrect we will be broke.

joea
 
Bill M said:
Thanks for that Julia, whichever way you want to look at it using your screenshot or my calculator that I posted, most of us will be better off under the new tax free threshold wouldn't you agree? In my wife's and my case we will be $1400 p/y better off as a self funded couple.
Click to expand...
Julia and Bill M, grateful to you both. This is good information. Cheers L.
 
Julia said:
Exactly what happened.

This might be a bit off topic, but I've been impressed by Chris Urhlman recently, especially when socking it to Swannie after the Budget presentation tonight.
Give him another year or so and imo he'll be way better than his predecessor
Kerry O'Brien. (I actually had to stop for a few seconds there to try to remember his name!)

Anyone else made similar observations about Mr Urhlman?

Or The Budget?
Click to expand...

He ripped into Julia tonight..almost to the point of stupidity, talking over her and trying to drive home stupid idiotic questions.

Mr Urhlman is starting to annoy me...to bad the TV doesn't have an ignore function.
 
So_Cynical said:
He ripped into Julia tonight..almost to the point of stupidity, talking over her and trying to drive home stupid idiotic questions.

Mr Urhlman is starting to annoy me...to bad the TV doesn't have an ignore function.
Click to expand...
Is that his name????

I was channel surfing a bit last night, trying to avoid coverage of the budget (let's face it, if anyone wants an expert opinion they only have to look here :D ;) ), but saw a portion of an interview with Swan on the ABC. The interviewer was hard and fast, but every time Swan shot him down, he verrrrry quickly moved on.
 
Bill M said:
Thanks for that Julia, whichever way you want to look at it using your screenshot or my calculator that I posted, most of us will be better off under the new tax free threshold wouldn't you agree? In my wife's and my case we will be $1400 p/y better off as a self funded couple.
Click to expand...
I have no idea, Bill. My only interest in it all (given I don't pay tax myself) is my continuing irritation at the misinformation being so propagated that the 'tax free threshold is being tripled' as it applies to low income workers and retirees.

In addition to the Low Income Tax Offset being so reduced, there's also the issue of the Seniors Tax Offset.

All I'm suggesting (and I'm damned if I know why I continue to bother) is that anyone disposed to believe the government's spin on this should do their own investigations into all the ramifications and how the results affect them, rather than just gullibly accept what this amoral government tosses out.

Eager said:
Is that his name????

I was channel surfing a bit last night, trying to avoid coverage of the budget (let's face it, if anyone wants an expert opinion they only have to look here :D ;) ), but saw a portion of an interview with Swan on the ABC. The interviewer was hard and fast, but every time Swan shot him down, he verrrrry quickly moved on.
Click to expand...
You see what you want to see. We all do, I suppose.
My interpretation was that Chris Urhlman had a specific number of points he wanted to make and he knows his allocation of time. The exchange was rapid fire and imo Mr Urhlman's points were in no way 'shot down' by Swan who appeared more panicked and frenetic as the interview progressed.
Maybe next time, Eager, watch such an interview in its entirety.
 
Julia said:
I have no idea, Bill. My only interest in it all (given I don't pay tax myself) is my continuing irritation at the misinformation being so propagated that the 'tax free threshold is being tripled' as it applies to low income workers and retirees.

In addition to the Low Income Tax Offset being so reduced, there's also the issue of the Seniors Tax Offset.

All I'm suggesting (and I'm damned if I know why I continue to bother) is that anyone disposed to believe the government's spin on this should do their own investigations into all the ramifications and how the results affect them, rather than just gullibly accept what this amoral government tosses out.


You see what you want to see. We all do, I suppose.
My interpretation was that Chris Urhlman had a specific number of points he wanted to make and he knows his allocation of time. The exchange was rapid fire and imo Mr Urhlman's points were in no way 'shot down' by Swan who appeared more panicked and frenetic as the interview progressed.
Maybe next time, Eager, watch such an interview in its entirety.
Click to expand...

What I noticed with Gillard tonight is that Uhlman was asking a question and she wasn't answering it, so he would ask again and she wouldn't answer again. Similarly with Swan. Eventually, as Julia said, the interview has to move on so it seems like the interviewer has given up but he or she simply moves on to the next question. I thought Gillard was pretty rude to Uhlman actually trying to put him down quite a lot. Generally I think he is pretty good but he did seem a little bit hectoring tonight (but as I said, I thought Gillard was pretty poor herself). Meh, these kind of interviews can be a waste of time sometimes.

Auslad pointed out on another thread that the Budget 'eliminated the 50 per cent capital gains discount for non residents of Australia. In effect this means that all capital gains made by non residents will be fully taxable at non resident rates. Also, the Government increased the non resident tax rates as well'. This is a positive outcome from the budget IMO (wonder why we didn't get any media coverage of this? :confused:)

Thread is here:

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24765
 
I think Uhlman is careful to go hard with labor politicians so people don't accuse him of being biased given who he's married to.
 
$5000 a year? Un-****ing believable. Complete disgrace for both ALP and the opposition for supporting any part of it.

The second worst part is, they didn't tackle negative gearing nor capital gains concessions for property.

The worst part is they went back on the 50% reduction in tax on interest earned up to $1000. Just encourage people to go into debt and not save money why don't you, ****ing scumbags - all they want is a country of debt slaves.

Who is going to invest in infrastructure? Where are Australian entrepreneurs going to find venture capital? How will people cope with hard times if they don't have savings to draw upon? Oh that's right, the government will take the money from more successful people and redistribute it.

How can Australia have a future when the government disregards every single one of the hundreds of good suggestions produced by the tax review? Why even have a tax review if you aren't going to act upon it, why waste the money :banghead:
 
Starcraftmazter said:
How can Australia have a future when the government disregards every single one of the hundreds of good suggestions produced by the tax review? Why even have a tax review if you aren't going to act upon it, why waste the money :banghead:
Click to expand...

Because Labor is mostly "bluff".
They represent a party who "like to be seen" to be doing things! But cannot make decisions to implement the good ideas. Ego I think, because Labor did not think of the ideas.. This is on the one hand, and on the other, they want to implement things they cannot pay for.
Take the NDIS. A story today in the Australian, Wong says they may have to implement another tax to pay for it. Now we know why they increased Commonwealth debt $50 billion.
Now the report on the NDIS , recommended it to be implemented in a years time, but no, Gillard rushed in(implementing it a year early), and stuffed it up with no funding .
It is obvious to the Australian voters, she is attempting to buy votes again.
By the polls, the people will take they handout, but not vote for Labor anyway.

As for Henry's tax reforms. The handling of this by Labor will, will be remembered as their downfall.
joea
 
joea said:
Because Labor is mostly "bluff".
They represent a party who "like to be seen" to be doing things! But cannot make decisions to implement the good ideas. Ego I think, because Labor did not think of the ideas.. This is on the one hand, and on the other, they want to implement things they cannot pay for.
Take the NDIS. A story today in the Australian, Wong says they may have to implement another tax to pay for it. Now we know why they increased Commonwealth debt $50 billion.
Now the report on the NDIS , recommended it to be implemented in a years time, but no, Gillard rushed in(implementing it a year early), and stuffed it up with no funding .
It is obvious to the Australian voters, she is attempting to buy votes again.
By the polls, the people will take they handout, but not vote for Labor anyway.

As for Henry's tax reforms. The handling of this by Labor will, will be remembered as their downfall.
joea
Click to expand...

Oh god its got nothing to do with it as Bingle pointed out on the Insiders but hey keep the rant running eh.

Abbott is known as a great reformer cough cough he will be able to sort a tax reform out for you.
 
IFocus said:
Abbott is known as a great reformer cough cough he will be able to sort a tax reform out for you.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here, I don't trust LNP any more than ALP. LNP has a toxic track record of encouraging people to take on ridiculous amounts of debt to fuel the housing bubble instead of doing anything about it and trying to make Australia more competitive in the world.

Maybe I should start a party called, "Good Economic Governance Party of Australia". Problem is, everyone would be too stupid to vote, "oooh noooz muh baba bonoos".
 
joea said:
Because Labor is mostly "bluff".
They represent a party who "like to be seen" to be doing things! But cannot make decisions to implement the good ideas. Ego I think, because Labor did not think of the ideas.. This is on the one hand, and on the other, they want to implement things they cannot pay for.
Take the NDIS. A story today in the Australian, Wong says they may have to implement another tax to pay for it. Now we know why they increased Commonwealth debt $50 billion.
Now the report on the NDIS , recommended it to be implemented in a years time, but no, Gillard rushed in(implementing it a year early), and stuffed it up with no funding .
It is obvious to the Australian voters, she is attempting to buy votes again.
By the polls, the people will take they handout, but not vote for Labor anyway.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that Australian voters do actually realise that the NDIS is actually unfunded, any money directed toward it so far only actually covering the administration set up.

The government managed to conceal this pretty well and have created the impression in the minds of many that in the next five minutes all people with a disability will henceforth magically have their every need catered for.

Ditto their Aged Care plan which in principle is good, but again lacks sufficient funding to make a genuine difference.

Ditto the suggested allocation of funds for dental programs which are supposed to address the shortage of public dentists in the regions. They don't mention that there are apparently just not enough dentists being trained to fulfil this program.

So lots of comforting motherhood statements about looking after working families, but the reality is sadly different.

Not that I can see the Coalition doing much better with Joe Hockey's assertions in the wake of the Budget that 'the government didn't know what cuts were' and that 'the Coalition would be cutting welfare and services much, much harder'.

Sometimes I have real fears - especially when I listen to Joe Hockey - that we could end up with even more social disadvantage with a change of government.
 
Not that I can see the Coalition doing much better with Joe Hockey's assertions in the wake of the Budget that 'the government didn't know what cuts were' and that 'the Coalition would be cutting welfare and services much, much harder'.

Sometimes I have real fears - especially when I listen to Joe Hockey - that we could end up with even more social disadvantage with a change of government.
Click to expand...

Correct, and it's not just social disadvantage. The LNP's idea of managing slowdowns in the economy is to cut government spending, taking more money out of the economy, increasing unemployment even more and thereby reducing consumer spending which is the heartbeat of the economy. They create a vicious cycle which takes years to climb out of eg, the Fraser/Howard recession.

The sensible way to manage the economy is to take money out when times are good (eg in a mining boom), build up a financial buffer which can then be released during a slowdown by investments in infrastructure, thereby creating employment and keeping the money circulating. You will notice that this is what Labor did during the GFC, though I'm not sure it spent the money on the right infrastructure.
 
Julia said:
Sometimes I have real fears - especially when I listen to Joe Hockey - that we could end up with even more social disadvantage with a change of government.
Click to expand...

Well if you are a socialist - then why not just vote for the Greens?

The only way to eliminate social disadvantage is to get rid of incentives designed to de-motivate people from working and allow them to laze around - ie. welfare.

rumpole said:
Correct, and it's not just social disadvantage. The LNP's idea of managing slowdowns in the economy is to cut government spending, taking more money out of the economy, increasing unemployment even more and thereby reducing consumer spending which is the heartbeat of the economy. They create a vicious cycle which takes years to climb out of eg, the Fraser/Howard recession.
Click to expand...

This is actually the correct approach. Consumer spending shouldn't drive economies anyway - exports should.

rumpole said:
The sensible way to manage the economy is to take money out when times are good (eg in a mining boom), build up a financial buffer which can then be released during a slowdown by investments in infrastructure, thereby creating employment and keeping the money circulating. You will notice that this is what Labor did during the GFC, though I'm not sure it spent the money on the right infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this - but all governments have completely failed to save money for a rainy day. Considering that in the last 20 years we had a mammoth commodity bubble and lots of mining-related revenue, this is nothing short of scandalous corruption and incompetence.

Because we do not in fact have any money saved, we cannot afford to spend money during recessions - and of course government spending must be cut in order to prevent the government from going into deficit.

Because nothing is as bad as government deficits. Just think - taxpayer dollars used to pay interest to private banks who are allowed to print their own money. Ridiculous.
 
I think the budget is a disaster..................hang on Abbott going to vote for it.
 
Top