Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
overhang said:
In which case that is pure speculation that MP margins are unsustainable. This is up to the government to explain without you going in to bat for them.
Click to expand...
I'm not batting for anyone or commenting on MP margins.

I'm just simply considering the relative risk investment markets apply to different asset classes and how that logically impacts on using the government bond rate as a benchmark on the sale price of assets.
 
drsmith said:
I'm not batting for anyone or commenting on MP margins.

I'm just simply considering the relative risk investment markets apply to different asset classes and how that logically impacts on using the government bond rate as a benchmark on the sale price of assets.
Click to expand...

It's relevant when the government is attempting to raise capital.
 
overhang said:
It's relevant when the government is attempting to raise capital.
Click to expand...
Let's just clear up one thing.

Do you consider that governments should only sell assets that offer a rate of return to investors that is less than the government bond rate ?
 
drsmith said:
Let's just clear up one thing.

Do you consider that governments should only sell assets that offer a rate of return to investors that is less than the government bond rate ?
Click to expand...

Of course not but I want a good explanation by the government on why they deem this the best approach to raise capital. I guess I want to know if this is for economic reasons or just political point scoring to achieve a surplus.

I do feel more comfortable about the sale after reading the fact check about the premiums
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-05/matthias-cormann-medibank-private-sale-impact/5058346
 
Premiums are not the only factor in a for profit organisation. An aggressive owner of Medibank Private could keep premiums with similar relativity to other providers but e.g. reduce payouts etc.

As a member, it pains me that my premium increases every year partly go to providing all sorts of crap like homeopathy when buying the Extras component. I've not been able to find an option where I pay less for simply having access to routine dental care.

I'll believe there will no additional increase in premiums or reduction in benefits when I see it happening.

Also would have preferred the government to continue its ownership and reaping of the healthy dividends.

Separately, I avoid IPOs as a rule, but - depending on the prospectus - this is one that might be worth engaging in.
 
Julia said:
Premiums are not the only factor in a for profit organisation. An aggressive owner of Medibank Private could keep premiums with similar relativity to other providers but e.g. reduce payouts etc.

As a member, it pains me that my premium increases every year partly go to providing all sorts of crap like homeopathy when buying the Extras component. I've not been able to find an option where I pay less for simply having access to routine dental care.

I'll believe there will no additional increase in premiums or reduction in benefits when I see it happening.

Also would have preferred the government to continue its ownership and reaping of the healthy dividends.

Separately, I avoid IPOs as a rule, but - depending on the prospectus - this is one that might be worth engaging in.
Click to expand...

Yes when you get such a consistence rate return no investor for income would sell.
 
sptrawler said:
Unless the capital could be required, to fund greater growth.
Click to expand...
Isn't such a comment completely ignoring the primary reason for establishing the business in the first place? i.e. to provide security of good health care to members.

I'm completely sick of governments, both state and federal, who have failed to make appropriate provision for ongoing infrastructure needs, take the easy way out in selling a valuable asset for short term capital availability.

There seems to be no thought whatsoever given to the thousands of people who are finding the exponentially rising cost of living unaffordable. It's a case of "let's increase our own profits and stuff the customers".
I heard a news report a couple of days ago about the many thousands of people who have had their electricity cut off because they simply cannot pay.

Meantime, the Qld government has just been awarded by an 'independent' organisation a 22% pay increase for the Premier and an even greater % for the leader of the opposition.
"Nothing we can do about it", opines the Premier. "It's completely out of our hands."

What a crock!
 
Julia said:
Isn't such a comment completely ignoring the primary reason for establishing the business in the first place? i.e. to provide security of good health care to members.

I'm completely sick of governments, both state and federal, who have failed to make appropriate provision for ongoing infrastructure needs, take the easy way out in selling a valuable asset for short term capital availability.

There seems to be no thought whatsoever given to the thousands of people who are finding the exponentially rising cost of living unaffordable. It's a case of "let's increase our own profits and stuff the customers".
I heard a news report a couple of days ago about the many thousands of people who have had their electricity cut off because they simply cannot pay.

Meantime, the Qld government has just been awarded by an 'independent' organisation a 22% pay increase for the Premier and an even greater % for the leader of the opposition.
"Nothing we can do about it", opines the Premier. "It's completely out of our hands."
Click to expand...

Agree completely, however if the deficit has a servicing cost, and you don't want to further increase taxes. How do you fund it?
Also if you wish to further expand necessary infrastructure, without increasing taxes, how do you fund it?

If you decide to fund it with increased taxes, that increases costs, which increase the exponential cost of living.

The ridiculous MP pay rises, tells me scary times are coming. They are just pre arming, because they are pre warned.IMO
 
sptrawler said:
Agree completely, however if the deficit has a servicing cost, and you don't want to further increase taxes. How do you fund it?
Also if you wish to further expand necessary infrastructure, without increasing taxes, how do you fund it?

If you decide to fund it with increased taxes, that increases costs, which increase the exponential cost of living.
Click to expand...

The issue is not increasing taxes its the shrinking tax revenue base which no one in government wants to talk about because they would then have to explain why its all Labors fault.
 
IFocus said:
shrinking tax revenue base which no one in government wants to explain why its all Labors fault.
Click to expand...

No Balls Costello, If only He'd had just one, Things may have been so different. but now the legacy, as, Ross Garnaut describes so emphatically and accurately in 'Dog Days' as." the Great Australian Complacency', is ours now to suffer an deal with. We would have all be so much better off if Smirking Pete had choked to death a 'Jew Jube' out of a bag of those Dollar Sweets, Rather than have to wait and to see him just 'Choke'. To his cheer squad, 'you're clowns'.

Everybody else now feeling that medievilist reviveal now? If you're not, you're pretty lonely.
 
David Irvine, 67, has told his staff at the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that he will step down as director-general of security

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...n-september-20140402-35ye2.html#ixzz2xhyKQedg

I expect him to then have time to Visit Lord Viscount Downer over in London where, on plushly upholstered furnishings cigars and brandy balloons(at our expense) in hand they'll toast their success at screwing over the East Timorese, laying the ground work of a failed state that will require plushly appointed budgets for their bastard offspring/successors to oversee, to keep us 'safe' and uninformed.

Sir John Howard Our next ambassador to Baghdad. Carn't wait to see him off.
 
orr said:
David Irvine, 67, has told his staff at the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that he will step down as director-general of security

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...n-september-20140402-35ye2.html#ixzz2xhyKQedg

I expect him to then have time to Visit Lord Viscount Downer over in London where, on plushly upholstered furnishings cigars and brandy balloons(at our expense) in hand they'll toast their success at screwing over the East Timorese, laying the ground work of a failed state that will require plushly appointed budgets for their bastard offspring/successors to oversee, to keep us 'safe' and uninformed.

Sir John Howard Our next ambassador to Baghdad. Carn't wait to see him off.
Click to expand...


You forgot Sir Nick Minchin..........:)
 
What a low life


Dubai fraud case: Emails suggest Alexander Downer was asked to lobby on behalf of Marcus Lee

he ABC's Foreign Correspondent program revealed last night that Mr Downer, while working as a consultant for hire, had written to the country's Crown Prince in 2009 seeking bail for one of the Australians, Matt Joyce.

The approach involved a negotiation of a success fee, estimated at $60,000.

Controversially his letter, delivered by the Australian Embassy, made no mention of the other Australian defendant, Marcus Lee.
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-02/imprisoned-australian-lashes-out-at-alexander-downer/5362226
 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...llengesparkinson/story-fn3dxiwe-1226872690545

Just weeks out from Treasurer Joe Hockey's first budget, Dr Parkinson told a conference in Sydney that government revenues cannot "magically" return to the levels seen prior to the 2008-2009 global financial crisis.

Some have suggested that if only personal income tax cuts had been avoided in the 2000s things would be better," he told the Sydney Institute on Wednesday.

"As a tautology, it is hard to fault that logic.

"But if we had held on to that revenue, it may well have been spent on outlays rather than on tax cuts, meaning average earners would have faced higher marginal and average tax rates than they do now."
Click to expand...
Ain't that the truth.

My bolds.
 
IFocus said:
The issue is not increasing taxes its the shrinking tax revenue base which no one in government wants to talk about because they would then have to explain why its all Labors fault.
Click to expand...

Well the shrinking tax revenue base
Didn't happen in the last six months, did it.
The shrinking tax base and ballooning debt, happened under Labor.
They continued spending and promising grandiose initiatives, while the tax take was shrinking and their spending was increasing.:eek:

Your obviously just having a lend of everyone.:D You can't really believe this situation has only developed in the last six months.:eek:
 
banco said:
They need to start including the PPOR in pension means tests to give tax revenue a boost.
Click to expand...

Why?

So you've lived in the same house for 30++ years and it has now gone up in value. Hello...pay more tax. I think a lot of oldies are asset rich but cash flow poor.
 
Top