The Wasteful Liberals

[IFocus]

this shows your world view, the govt owns all money and chooses to give it back when it chooses...

Actually I think most of the time its treasury that decides where the money comes from and goes to politicians generally wouldn't have a clue more so on the current opposition front bench god help us when they get their fingers in the till.

 

[FlyingFox]

this shows your world view, the govt owns all money and chooses to give it back when it chooses... letting people keep more of their own money isnt a tax subsidy.. only economic cretins who belief in govt money multiplier BS would think so. Plundering is plundering no matter what legal form it takes..

Isn't it the bond holder's that own all (well most of) the money :?

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Wow! Very insightful. Since you put in quotes, I am assuming you are quoting someone. How is that quote attributed to?

 

[FlyingFox]

Isn't it the bond holder's that own all (well most of) the money :?



Wow! Very insightful. Since you put in quotes, I am assuming you are quoting someone. How is that quote attributed to?

Meant to say who is the quote attributed to?

 

[sails]

Meant to say who is the quote attributed to?

FlyingFox - a quick copy and paste of the quote put into a google search and about 5 seconds later here is your answer:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

and this: http://www.markturner.net/2012/11/12/public-treasury-quote-is-bogus/

I hope the quote is not true - but it looks like Australia is heading down that path regardless of who actually may or may not have said it.

 

[sptrawler]

Actually I think most of the time its treasury that decides where the money comes from and goes to politicians generally wouldn't have a clue more so on the current opposition front bench god help us when they get their fingers in the till.

Agree with that 100%, Swan had about as much knowledge about the economy as my ar$e had about snipe shooting.lol
I, like you think treasury give the government an indicator of the amount of money in the kitty.
The government gives treasury its spending priorities and it is then run through the economic modelling computer.
The problem is, Labor just kept feeding in crap for the first three years, since then they have been trying to plug the hole.

 

[FlyingFox]

FlyingFox - a quick copy and paste of the quote put into a google search and about 5 seconds later here is your answer:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

and this: http://www.markturner.net/2012/11/12/public-treasury-quote-is-bogus/

I hope the quote is not true - but it looks like Australia is heading down that path regardless of who actually may or may not have said it.

thanks.

I am afraid it might not just be Australia......

 

[sydboy007]

I would agree that the libs splashed the cash in the later years.

After paying down the huge debt incurred by Labor I think they were entitled to spend a bit to appease their supporters who had gone without while the debt was repaid.

The amazing waste of Labor since taking power is totally opposite, badly overdone and poorly aimed stimulation which has saddled the next generation with our debt so that Labor can look good.

Don't they like their own kids ?

Considering:

33% of the Labor debt was bequeathed to them by the Fraser Govt and treasurer Howard

75% of the ~ 96B in debt was paid via asset sales - considering the low interest rates paid by the Govt I would argue that selling an asset that pays a higher rate of return than your funding costs is not particularly smart.

Lest we forget, Howard decided to keep on spending in the face of the RBA basically saying stop. Inflation was heading to 4% and yet still the middle class welfare bribes kept flowing. I'd have had more respect for the Guy if some of the spending had been used for lasting infrastructure, or just plonked into our super accounts.

Howard was a consummate politician, but don't for one minute hold him up as some paragon of economic efficiency.

If the current Labor Govt had been averaging the same % of tax revenue to GDP as Howard had received the deficits would largely not have occurred. The highest level of tax revenue under the current Govt has never reached the lowest level under Howard, yet for some reason his supporters always say he represents small Govt.

 

[sptrawler]

Considering:

33% of the Labor debt was bequeathed to them by the Fraser Govt and treasurer Howard

75% of the ~ 96B in debt was paid via asset sales - considering the low interest rates paid by the Govt I would argue that selling an asset that pays a higher rate of return than your funding costs is not particularly smart.

.

I agree with you completely, Sydboy

CBA floated 1991

Government sells Australian Airlines to Qantas 1992

Qantas floated 1993

CSL floated 1994

Keating and the Labor government lost power to the Howard government in 1996. Leaves Howard with $96B deficit.
Am I missing something in your post? I wasn't sure who you were indicating sold off the assetts.

The $96B was inherited by Howard after the Labor assett sale .

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf, I am talking about the much complained about "middle class welfare" to those with families here, not those who can be on welfare simply by keep having children.

The middle class would pay a fair chunk of tax revenue, I would think, and so I don't see what's wrong with giving a bit back to those who need it more than those who don't have kids. These people are already paying tax so no-one else is paying them to get a bit back.

It could be argued that single people, for example, need it even more since apart from food and clothing, their household costs aren't much lower than for a couple and yet they must survive on just one income rather than two.

Should we have a higher rate of tax for couples versus singles? It would seem to be at least as justified, if not more, than assisting those with children.

My opinion on the whole issue, having worked in the state public service in the past, is that economic policies are more a case of "group think" than who is in government at the time. Take a look at whatever is happening in the UK or the USA and you'll find that Australian governments, both federal and state, follow suit pretty quickly. Once someone starts running a deficit then they all do it. Once someone proclaims the virtue of surpluses then everyone at least tries to get there.

The notion of privatising public utilities comes largely from the UK, and that of outsourcing government works is copied partly from the "ministry model" from New Zealand. And in the specific case of electricity, the notion that a "market" with "competition" would work is a direct flow on from what happened under the Wran goverment in NSW three decades ago. Once someone does it, everyone copies - that's how governments work, they don't do much original thinking at all.

Back in the late 1980's, Cain (Labor) bankrupted Victoria. Meanwhile Grey (Liberal) did essentially the same in Tasmania. It's the overall group think of the era that counts, not who is actually in government at the time. As it stands today, there's a "slash and burn" Liberal National Party government in Queensland - and we've got a Labor-Green government in Tasmania that's been doing broadly the same thing since 2010. Again it's the overall circumstances and thinking, not who is in government, that sets the overall direction. The government itself just tinkers with the means of delivery.

 

[McLovin]

It could be argued that single people, for example, need it even more since apart from food and clothing, their household costs aren't much lower than for a couple and yet they must survive on just one income rather than two.

Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.

It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.

 

[Smurf1976]

Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.

It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.

Agreed in principle. But I was thinking largely of those without children - a working couple is far better off than a single can ever hope to be if all other things are equal.

If we're going to redistribute wealth (not that I think we should by the way) then my point is that families with children aren't the logical choice of where to hand the money as a first priority. It is, however, a good way to buy votes.

 

[sptrawler]

Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.

It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.

I think a lot of this child welfare is to do with the problem of falling birth rate.
It was to encourage working couples to have children and still be able to pay the mortgage, then rejoin the workforce.
As with all systems there are people who will exploit it.
Actually I would love to see a chart showing the number of children verses the parents income.lol that would be interesting.
But guess what, there was a baby boom.lol
So maybe the 457's won't go on forever.
Just hope the next generation come through quick enough, before the 'make us all plebs' take over.

 

[Julia]

It's the social engineering aspect many despise.

Encouraging those with limited finances to have children simply to grab the cash. How common it is is an arguable point, but it happens.

It's not that uncommon if my anecdotal experience of twelve or more years assessing people applying for emergency relief is any guide.

The greater problem here imo is that welfare like the baby bonus encourages breeding by those motivated just by the money and the resulting likelihood of more generations on welfare.
I'd be happy to see tax benefits going to families whose children will make the most of their educational and work opportunities and therefore contribute to the system, rather than those who are a drain on the taxpayer for their entire lives.

A woman I worked with not that long ago was not interested in working full time for a very simple reason. To work full time meant loss of benefits, such that's she'd effectively be working twice the hours for "free". That being so, sitting at home watching TV at the taxpayers' expense is the logical choice. Another example of the problems with welfare - the amount paid is so high that it's better than a paid job in some cases.

Sure. A single mother with four or five kids, especially if in public housing which they often are, is in a very financially advantageous situation. I'm damned if I see why it should be so.

+10.

No government today thinks past the next election. No one is willing to make the non-popular or difficult decisions.

Agree overall, but perhaps Howard bringing in the GST was going some way toward this.

Smurf, I am talking about the much complained about "middle class welfare" to those with families here, not those who can be on welfare simply by keep having children.

The middle class would pay a fair chunk of tax revenue, I would think, and so I don't see what's wrong with giving a bit back to those who need it more than those who don't have kids. These people are already paying tax so no-one else is paying them to get a bit back.

So what's the point? If you want to buy votes of the middle class, just tax them a bit less in the first place, rather than take the tax then hand it back. (Not that I'm in favour of that either.)

Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.

It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.

+100. Couldn't agree more.

Agreed in principle. But I was thinking largely of those without children - a working couple is far better off than a single can ever hope to be if all other things are equal.

Correct. Two incomes to pay the same non-discretionary household expenses.

 

[FlyingFox]

Not taking sides but the problem with many of these "promises" is that they are very hard to change. People get used to them. Also they cause biases in "the system" that are not obvious at the time but afterwards very hard to change.

Many examples ( and many will argue against them):

1) Negative gearing -> Ok it might keep rents down but causes the property market to be one where capital gain is cherished above all else. Causes affordability problems.
2) First home buyers grant -> Try to fix the above my giving money to people to get into debt and prop up property market. Many took advantage to buy and sell in an year.
3) Baby Bonus -> Some of the repercussions of this will not be obvious for another 10 years. Arguably a good idea. Very very bad execution.
4) GFC Stimulation package -> again arguably a good idea but very bad execution.

Same goes for welfare, middle-class or otherwise. It's about incentive, why would you work when you will get the same/similar money on welfare?

It's arguable that families with kids should get tax benefits. This helps keep the birth rate up but if I decide to have one kid, why should I support someone who wants to have three kids? It's their choice, they should not be expecting a handout for it.

There is an impact on productivity as well. People will simply refuse to be more productive (i.e earn more) because it is in their best interests to stay within certain tax-brackets, means tests etc etc. Heck my better half and I have discussed this on many occasions (not to go on welfare but whether certain investments/hours worked are worth it).

 

[FlyingFox]

Agree overall, but perhaps Howard bringing in the GST was going some way toward this.

If I'm not mistaken, he did "sweeten" the deal significantly. Also I think many people still held that against him when he ultimately lost office.

 

[drsmith]

This thread is busy.

The Libs must be really wasteful.

 

[sydboy007]

Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.

It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.

oh +1

the number of people having kids and then expecting to maintain the kind of lifestyle they had before is just gob smacking.

Though the whole baby bonus of the Libs probably encouraged the mentality that the Govt will support me as i pop them out.

If you can afford smart phones and play boxes, TVs in every bedroom then why do MY taxes go to subsidising YOUR lifestyle??

But wait, it was Howard who did this, so somehow it mustn't have been wasteful spending.

Personally, I know a lot of international students who would make far better Aussie citizens than a lot of those born here and get it by default. Far better to encourage students who have the drive and ambition to study in Australia, obtain a good mark to stay here. A lot of them came here because they see the benefits of the Australian way of life. Why push them to go home when they could add so much economically and socially to Australia?

 

[sails]

oh +1

the number of people having kids and then expecting to maintain the kind of lifestyle they had before is just gob smacking.

Though the whole baby bonus of the Libs probably encouraged the mentality that the Govt will support me as i pop them out.

If you can afford smart phones and play boxes, TVs in every bedroom then why do MY taxes go to subsidising YOUR lifestyle??

But wait, it was Howard who did this, so somehow it mustn't have been wasteful spending.

Personally, I know a lot of international students who would make far better Aussie citizens than a lot of those born here and get it by default. Far better to encourage students who have the drive and ambition to study in Australia, obtain a good mark to stay here. A lot of them came here because they see the benefits of the Australian way of life. Why push them to go home when they could add so much economically and socially to Australia?

Labor have been in power now for 5 years and the last 18 months have had a friendly senate - they have had a pretty easy ride to get legislation through both houses.

Why haven't labor changed this?

All they have done is reduce the baby bonus from $5000 to $3000 after baby 1. Still for unlimited children and I agree with you that it does encourage the "mentality that the Govt will support me as i pop them out". It seems labor has supported this seeming "waste".

And those popping the most out are probably those who are already on welfare and don't contribute tax anyway. Not like the middle class who ARE paying tax and those with families get a little bit extra back. Very different scenarios, imo.

And agree that we should be encouraging skilled people to this country rather than taking in boat loads of wealthy people (who have money to pay smugglers) and encouraging those who can least afford it to have multiple children. In both cases it can lead to a life time drain on the welfare system for years ahead.

 

[moXJO]

Sydboy you always forget to mention Whitlam was before Fraser and that Keating set the ball rolling on selling assets.

 

[IFocus]

This thread is busy.

The Libs must be really wasteful.

Took a while but knew you would catch on eventually

BTW WA election is looking far closer than I expected, I like Barney 1st Liberal ever to spend on infrastructure even the chair sniffer is OK when sober but where are the rest of the dimwits in the Liberal party?

Only I don't get the foreshore development?