Stimulus package

Largesse · 31 May 2009

jono1887 said:
I'm sorry if i dont wait around on these forums for a reply... i do have other stuff to do... but here there are -

"Consumers spent a record $19.3 billion in March when the government started rolling out billions of dollars in its second round of cash handouts.

This was a seasonally adjusted 2.2 per cent increase in spending compared to February, and much stronger than the 0.5 per cent increase forecast by economists"

"Australian Bureau of Statistics figures during the week put the jump in overall retail sales for December compared with a month earlier at 3.8 per cent. The strongest performers were household goods (up 9.9 per cent), department stores (up 8.3 per cent) and clothing and manchester (up 5.8 per cent)."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1017438/Retail-rises-'thanks-to-stimulus-package'
http://business.theage.com.au/busin...package-sets-tills-ringing-20090206-800l.html

happy now?

are you happy with your response?

would your Economics Major Professor be happy with your response?

You failed to answer the question properly

You get 1/10.

F

gav · 31 May 2009

jono1887 said:
I'm sorry if i dont wait around on these forums for a reply... i do have other stuff to do... but here there are -

"Consumers spent a record $19.3 billion in March when the government started rolling out billions of dollars in its second round of cash handouts.

This was a seasonally adjusted 2.2 per cent increase in spending compared to February, and much stronger than the 0.5 per cent increase forecast by economists"

"Australian Bureau of Statistics figures during the week put the jump in overall retail sales for December compared with a month earlier at 3.8 per cent. The strongest performers were household goods (up 9.9 per cent), department stores (up 8.3 per cent) and clothing and manchester (up 5.8 per cent)."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1017438/Retail-rises-'thanks-to-stimulus-package'
http://business.theage.com.au/busin...package-sets-tills-ringing-20090206-800l.html

happy now?

That may be a huge jump from normal month to month sales, but it's a relatively small amount considering how much was handed out!

Also notice the strongest performers - household goods, department stores and clothing/manchester. How many of these goods were Australian made? The figure would be very low. So where does that money go? Overseas. How does this help OUR economy?

Beej · 31 May 2009

Pappon said:
I have a friend who's wife is a stay at home mum they receive centrelink benefits ontop of his wage. Currently he salary sacrifices some of his pay into his his super and currently until 30 June means that his salary sacrificing into super is not classed as income tax.

As of the 1st of July this salary sacrificing he would have been doing is now classed at income tax which reduces their payments. My friend makes $35k per year and still gets the **** which is not fair at all, he's a hard worker and now because of how labor has changed the laws with salary sacrificing into super he's worse off oh and did i mention he earns 35k per year.

Oh I see so what you are actually going on about is not the change to the AMOUNT of income that can be salary sacrificed into super, but the fact that whatever you do sacrifice is still deemed as "income" for the purposes of assessing eligibility to Centrelink and other means tested welfare benefits?

Again, that is nothing but a tax rort and noone has any RIGHT to government money/welfare. If your friend is salary sacrificing into super in order to keep his taxable income down so he/his family can get welfare, well boo-bloody-hoo if he can no longer do that! As it is he is getting a discounted tax rate of only 15% on the super contributions, and in addition he/you expect the government to keep giving him even MORE money through welfare?

And you call yourself a Liberal supporter! This change is totally fair and stops people like your friend from rorting the welfare system unfairly.

gav said:
That may be a huge jump from normal month to month sales, but it's a relatively small amount considering how much was handed out!

Also notice the strongest performers - household goods, department stores and clothing/manchester. How many of these goods were Australian made? The figure would be very low. So where does that money go? Overseas. How does this help OUR economy?

Hey Gav - fair points and these are the main criticisms of cash stimulus. But remember it may take many months for that stimulus cash to work it's way out of peoples pockets.... having said that it is a clear a large proportion of it will be saved for a rainy day, and/or spent on imported goods.

Cheers,

Beej

jono1887 · 31 May 2009

Pappon said:
No i said state a comparison for the last 2 years earlier "Consumers spent a record $19.3 billion in March when the government started rolling out billions of dollars in its second round of cash handouts. the 'record' could have been up by only $1 from last year STATE a comparison to see the whole picture. Compare it with the same month for the last 2 years running. Also while i'm at it isn't December/christmas an obligatory time to spend for our loved ones of course retail sales will be up

December 2007 - $18.1bn
December 2008 - $19.1bn

January 2008 - $18.1bn
January 2009 - $19.2bn

February 2008 - $18.1bn
February 2009 - $18.9bn

March 2008 - $18.1bn
March 2009 - $19.3bn

The cash hand outs boosted sales by 1bn in comparison to the previous year. But you have to remember back in 2007/8 no one had a care in the world and everyone was happy to spend. Being able to maintain and increase the spending by ~1bn consistently over 4 months in a period of impeding recession and a GFC was probably beneficial to the economy, rather than seeing retail spending contract...

*figures are from RBA - http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/AlphaListing/alpha_listing_r.html

Pappon · 31 May 2009

Largesse said:
are you happy with your response?

would your Economics Major Professor be happy with your response?

You failed to answer the question properly

You get 1/10.

F

ROFL!

jono1887 · 31 May 2009

Also note that spending in March was greater than in December for the last 2 years.... doesnt that tell you that alot there was a lot of spending, considering they surpassed Christmas levels??

jono1887 · 31 May 2009

Largesse said:
are you happy with your response?

would your Economics Major Professor be happy with your response?

You failed to answer the question properly

You get 1/10.

F

If you havnt noticed, we're on a forum.... i wasnt aware that i was sitting an economics exam here

Pappon · 31 May 2009

Beej said:
that is nothing but a tax rort
It's currently legal there's nothing wrong with what he's doing, under a labor government he's worst off and that's the argument that YOU should take from this LABOR is no good

Who does Labor help hey? They don't help business they don't help high income earners and from my example they don't help low income workers who WANTS to work harder for less, who do they help huh?

Labor only helps the prolong the RUDD RECCESION lol

Pappon · 31 May 2009

jono1887 said:
December 2007 - $18.1bn
December 2008 - $19.1bn

The cash hand outs boosted sales by 1bn in comparison to the previous year.

*figures are from RBA - http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/AlphaListing/alpha_listing_r.html

Exceptional an increase of $1 billion from how much was handed out over Christmas 10.4 billion can anybody help me with my maths here:
1 billion divided by 10.4 billion = 0.096% so lets round that figure up for you lets say 10% so what happend to the 90% seems like a waste to me

jono1887 · 31 May 2009

Pappon said:
Exceptional an increase of $1 billion from how much was handed out over Christmas 10.4 billion can anybody help me with my maths here:
1 billion divided by 10.4 billion = 0.096% so lets round that figure up for you lets say 10% so what happend to the 90% seems like a waste to me

You have to realise that last 2007 = no recession, 2008 = recession
a significant decrease should have been anticipated, but was prevented by the cash handouts, that is something that cannot be seen in the figures.

Pappon · 31 May 2009

jono1887 said:
You have to realise that last 2007 = no recession, 2008 = recession
a significant decrease should have been anticipated, but was prevented by the cash handouts, that is something that cannot be seen in the figures.

Fine i gave you 0.04% i will round it back down 0.096% obviously you can't understand 0.096% is P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. Prevented what don't you understand 0.096% was spent, which means 0.904% was NOT spent, oh my god

"NO SOUP FOR YOU!"

Julia · 31 May 2009

Beej said:
Again, that is nothing but a tax rort and noone has any RIGHT to government money/welfare. If your friend is salary sacrificing into super in order to keep his taxable income down so he/his family can get welfare, well boo-bloody-hoo if he can no longer do that! As it is he is getting a discounted tax rate of only 15% on the super contributions, and in addition he/you expect the government to keep giving him even MORE money through welfare?

I also agree with this change. The welfare bill is extraordinary, partly because of too many opportunities to reduce taxable income.

Julia · 31 May 2009

jono1887 said:
December 2007 - $18.1bn
December 2008 - $19.1bn

January 2008 - $18.1bn
January 2009 - $19.2bn

February 2008 - $18.1bn
February 2009 - $18.9bn

March 2008 - $18.1bn
March 2009 - $19.3bn

Are these figures inflation adjusted?

Pappon · 31 May 2009

Julia said:
Are these figures inflation adjusted?

Most probably not as it will instill a greater sense achievement for labor supporters :burn:

If you haven't got me by now let it be known i hate labor and there supporters.

I AM A NEO LIBERAL :vader: hehe

Largesse · 31 May 2009

Pappon said:
Exceptional an increase of $1 billion from how much was handed out over Christmas 10.4 billion can anybody help me with my maths here:
1 billion divided by 10.4 billion = 0.096% so lets round that figure up for you lets say 10% so what happend to the 90% seems like a waste to me

i know it's just a typo but 1000000000 / 10400000000 equals 0.096, which is 9.6% not 0.096%

Pappon · 31 May 2009

Largesse said:
i know it's just a typo but 1000000000 / 10400000000 equals 0.096, which is 9.6% not 0.096%

Sorry matey your right i put it as a decimal and added a % your right 0.096 = 9.6%

legs · 31 May 2009

We recieved stimulus payment for a child that we were recieving Family Tax A for even thouhg we made a mistake and weren't entitled to it. We contacted them and they said we cant have it taken off us and will never.

WRONG SYSTEM

Beej · 31 May 2009

Pappon said:
Who does Labor help hey? They don't help business they don't help high income earners and from my example they don't help low income workers who WANTS to work harder for less, who do they help huh?

Labor only helps the prolong the RUDD RECCESION lol

What crap.

Don't help business? Hello! The cash stimulus package is a BOON for heaps of Aussie businesses, small and large. As is the 50% tax rebate/allowance on business capital purchases thanks. How about the 30% company tax rate? I think that was initially a Labor government reform wasn't it??

Don't help high income earners? Well, I'm not sure they are supposed too, but I'm sure they are not complaining about the juicy tax cut they all get from July 1st this year. Also they were nice enough to keep measures like a non means tested 50% child care rebate in place (a move which actually surprised me under current circumstances), and that benefits a heap of high income people as well.

So Pappon, you clearly have no clue and base your views on irrational one-eyed political bias instead of actually analysing the facts of the situation. I guess that's the difference between a dyed in the wool Liberal supporter and a swinging voter.....

PS: My biggest criticisms of the current government are around the rush to put the emissions trading scheme legislation in place, the seeming lack of planning behind the cash stimulus and resulting stuff ups (but I understand why they did it that way). And finally the ill considered changes (that they are now backing down from) related to the tax treatment of employee share schemes - that was a really dumb one that if it goes ahead will result in less tax for the government instead of more as they will kill off all such schemes as they currently exist.

Cheers,

Beej

Smurf1976 · 1 June 2009

Beej said:
If you were such a great economist you might understand that major infrastructure projects can take up to 2 years to get going from the decision to spend some money on something, due to the need for project definition, tender process, then actual ramp up, design/construction etc.

If it wasn't for all the downsizing / outsourcing / privatisation of the past two decades then step 1 would already be done and step 2 simply wouldn't be needed at all.

So change that "2 years" to "a few months" without all the nonsense. How long would it take us to plan and ramp up for a military war, bushfire / flood / earthquake response or any other sudden emergency?

The answer is a LOT less than 2 years simply because in an emergency, things get done. And the economic situation is an emergency, so cut the red tape, lawyers and so on COMPLETELY out of the process, thus leaving us with engineers and construction workers. You'd be amazed how quickly things happen in that situation.

How long does it take to plan, tender and so on a rail line? I don't really know but it looks like taking about 6 weeks from the idea to finished construction following the emergency situation at the moment in Tas.

Lots of examples like that. Try demolishing a building and you'll spend months or even years arguing with councils, contractors and so on. Set it on fire and you'll have approval to remove the remains before the fire is even out.

How long does it take to build a power station? Depends on the type but normally the first 1 - 3 years are spent arguing about it, getting approvals and so on. But given a credible threat of the lights actually going out, even the Greens come on side to ram the project straight past all the red tape not in months, but in literally minutes. Things get done in emergencies. Always have and (hopefully) always will.

For the record, I've spent my entire working life in and around infrastructure (electrical, transport) and seen plenty of things built. It's the red tape and arguing, not design and construction, that holds things up. As long as you've got competent people doing the design and construction then it's not at all impossible, or even unusual, to be doing physical construction before it's fully designed. As I said, it works as long as everyone is competent and not working under contract.

Calliope · 13 June 2009

Schools infrastructure fund under fire

Article from: The Australian

THE federal government's $14.7 billion school infrastructure program has been attacked as a "fake education revolution" that delivers funds without assessing whether they are being used to help students' learning.

Leading education analysts described the spending as a lost opportunity overseen by a minister too busy to focus properly on education, with its primary aim not education, but politics and the next election.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25628853-601,00.html

The problem is that they want to spend the money in a hurry. If they ploughed a few billion into teacher education, if would improve education standards far more than spending the money on infrastructure.

Stimulus package

Largesse

gav

Beej

jono1887

Pappon

I dislike labor supporters

jono1887

jono1887

Pappon

I dislike labor supporters

Pappon

I dislike labor supporters

jono1887

Pappon

I dislike labor supporters

Julia

In Memoriam

Julia

In Memoriam

Pappon

I dislike labor supporters

Largesse

Pappon

I dislike labor supporters

legs

Beej

Smurf1976

Calliope

Similar threads

Stimulus package

I dislike labor supporters

I dislike labor supporters

I dislike labor supporters

I dislike labor supporters

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

I dislike labor supporters

I dislike labor supporters

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency