The Abbott Government

[Julia]

Gillard broke her promise on the Carbon tax and got thrown out for it. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't happen to the Coalition. Abbott campaigned heavily on 'trust' and not lying to the public. we will see after the budget if he can keep up that charade.

You are basically condoning lying for political gain. Once you go down that road, all faith in politicians is lost, and the biggest liar wins. Is that what you want ?

Of course they all do it, I'm just saying that we the voters shouldn't let them get away with it.

So you're saying we have to work out what are the silly and non silly promises made by Abbott before voting for him, yet most of the "promises" he made were the kind he said we could trust ie not off the cuff.

It seems like we're getting to the point we're we can barely trust anything he's said.

Shame he's not be able to hold himself to the same standards he kept demanding of the previous Govt.

Agree with all the above. If Mr Abbott was so unsure of his capacity to fulfil promises he should not have made them in the first place, especially in light of his vehement and sustained campaign against Gillard et al for not keeping promises.

The electorate was determined to throw Labor out. He had no need to make unnecessary promises at all.
Just stupid imo.

Rumpole and Syd: you both clearly have a preference for a Labor government. Could you perhaps outline what you think a Budget would be if Labor had been re-elected? ie what measures might they have put in place to genuinely rein in the expanding spending? Do you believe they will (or should) support some of the government measures (as we understand them to be at this stage) and if so, which ones?

 

[drsmith]

Could you perhaps outline what you think a Budget would be if Labor had been re-elected? ie what measures might they have put in place to genuinely rein in the expanding spending? Do you believe they will (or should) support some of the government measures (as we understand them to be at this stage) and if so, which ones?

For a start, we can forget the measures Labor put to the electorate prior the 2013 election only to later reject them in the senate.

 

[Calliope]

We can forget about Abbott's foolish promises, that's water under the bridge. The promise which he has kept, to hold a Royal Commission into Union Corruption, will ensure the Coalition is re-elected. The only doubt is whether Abbott will be leading it. I would pick Julie Bishop. Unlike Abbott she shows confidence and style and the Labor/Greens hate her which is a plus for her.

 

[McLovin]

The only doubt is whether Abbott will be leading it. I would pick Julie Bishop.

It's a pretty sad indictment of the body politic in this country when a guy can win in a landslide and six months later people are questioning if he'll be around at the next election.

 

[Knobby22]

We can forget about Abbott's foolish promises, that's water under the bridge. The promise which he has kept, to hold a Royal Commission into Union Corruption, will ensure the Coalition is re-elected. The only doubt is whether Abbott will be leading it. I would pick Julie Bishop. Unlike Abbott she shows confidence and style and the Labor/Greens hate her which is a plus for her.

It would be very interesting if Julie Bishop did become leader but I think that would be highly unlikely.

 

[Calliope]

It's a pretty sad indictment of the body politic in this country when a guy can win in a landslide and six months later people are questioning if he'll be around at the next election.

Gillard, Rudd and Swanny handed them the landslide victory on a platter. The proverbial drover's dog would have won it. Abbott has failed to make the transition from Opposition Leader to PM.

 

[McLovin]

Gillard, Rudd and Swanny handed them the landslide victory on a platter. The proverbial drover's dog would have won it. Abbott has failed to make the transition from Opposition Leader to PM.

Well yeah, I don't disagree. It says a lot about the previous government that a guy like Abbott, who was never popular, managed to get it handed to him on a silver platter.

There's nothing prime ministerial about him. He's just a idealogical driven hack.

 

[sydboy007]

Agree with all the above. If Mr Abbott was so unsure of his capacity to fulfil promises he should not have made them in the first place, especially in light of his vehement and sustained campaign against Gillard et al for not keeping promises.

The electorate was determined to throw Labor out. He had no need to make unnecessary promises at all.
Just stupid imo.

Rumpole and Syd: you both clearly have a preference for a Labor government. Could you perhaps outline what you think a Budget would be if Labor had been re-elected? ie what measures might they have put in place to genuinely rein in the expanding spending? Do you believe they will (or should) support some of the government measures (as we understand them to be at this stage) and if so, which ones?

So far the only policy kite I can support is the indexing of fuel excise. Howard was so short sighted when he froze it back in 2001.

As for what I'd like to see in the budget, well there's the $120B+ of tax expenditures that has us beating even the Italians in how much revenue leaks out of the budget. Every tax expenditure is a cut in services or a higher tax elsewhere.

I'd keep the rent and resource tax as it's very efficient, and while it wont bring in a huge amount of revenue, better to keep some of the commonwealth in the country than sending it off as dividends to foreign investors.

I'd quarantine NG to new assets ie existing shares / houses cannot be negatively geared - and also quarantining it against the income of the asset.

I'd like to see leadership on the GST, with a broadening of the base with income taxes reduced and targeted welfare increases.

I'd like to see the ATO investigate if we should revoke some of the tax treaties that the likes of Google and Apple use to pay next to no tax in this country.

I'd like to see the states encouraged to introduce broadly based progressive land taxes so that stamp duties can be killed off, and a new source of funding is secured - something like 5% of the population that is buying property each year provides an unfair share of state revenues. Along with this stop forcing new home owners to repay for all the infrastructure and the gold plating of it. Removing of stamp duty would allow empty nesters to down trade more easily, and there's needs to be a way to allow the excess funds from down sizing to be easily moved into super.

Between land tax and broadening of the GST there should be ample room to reduce commonwealth grants to the states, which can be then used to cut the corporate tax rate. GST and land taxes are so much more efficient that income and especially corporate taxes.

Then we need to have a discussion on if it's appropriate for pensioners with a million dollar house, million in super, pension income of $60K should be receiving Government welfare. We also need to decide if it's appropriate to have a super system with annual budget cost increasing at 12% a year and if the $30B+ in tax expenditures that flow mainly to the rich is good policy or if there's a cheaper and fairer way to ensure the aging of the population wont destroy the budget. Is tax free super affordable in 10-15 years when the number of retirees has nearly doubled?

Keep the RET as it's been shown to suppress wholesale electricity prices enough to pretty much negate it's costs. Keep the CEFC and continue to invest in clean energy. We need the infrastructure investment to help offset the mining CAPEX cliff

Bring in a legal requirement for all federal infrastructure funding to be vetted and approved by Infrastructure Australia, along with a guarantee of it's independence similar to the RBA. We cannot afford to make investments that are not self liquidating and generate enough economic returns to pay for themselves.

I'd like to see the Federal Govt work with the states to borrow for new roads and sell the bonds so that tolls can be set to repay the debt over a 50 year period. No more $10+ in tolls each day for those who are forced to live on the edge of cities due to over priced housing.

Have all assets sales vetted by Infrastructure Australia and the ACCC involved to ensure it's in the public interest to sell and that the right regulations are in place to see that the private owners don't abuse what will most likely be a monopoly or significant market share. I personally believe monopolies are best kept in Government hands.

 

[SirRumpole]

Agree with all the above. If Mr Abbott was so unsure of his capacity to fulfil promises he should not have made them in the first place, especially in light of his vehement and sustained campaign against Gillard et al for not keeping promises.

The electorate was determined to throw Labor out. He had no need to make unnecessary promises at all.
Just stupid imo.

Rumpole and Syd: you both clearly have a preference for a Labor government. Could you perhaps outline what you think a Budget would be if Labor had been re-elected? ie what measures might they have put in place to genuinely rein in the expanding spending? Do you believe they will (or should) support some of the government measures (as we understand them to be at this stage) and if so, which ones?

Labor would retain the carbon and mining taxes which are two sources of revenue the Coalition wants to abolish.

Most people have been compensated for the carbon tax and have factored in the cost in their budgets. The CT is less damaging than an increase in the fuel excise which hits all goods than have to be transported, which is just about everything. The mining tax should be strengthened (maybe by abolishing or reducing the tax credits given to miners for State royalty payments), and the expenditure which was promised against its revenue should be abolished. The revenue then goes into deficit reduction, paying off debt and provision for infrastructure.

Instead of increasing the fuel excise, I would cut the diesel fuel rebate for mining companies and farmers, reducing it over time, not abolishing it in one go.

Labor should oppose the Coalition's PPL scheme, even though it lets Abbott off the hook. Politically they should then cane him for promising this grossly irresponsible expenditure which adds $5 billion a year to the deficit so I've heard.

Raising the pension age to 70 is too fast too soon. 68 is high enough. 70 would be one of the highest in the western world.

Labor should oppose raising or extending the GST, and will obviously oppose any cuts to the minimum wage both of which would be very damaging to for lowly paid people. I can't see how self funded retirees like myself can be compensated for GST increases/widening whereas everyone else can be through income tax cuts or benefits increases.


$6 co-payment for bulk billing doctors I don't have much argument with as it may help to discourage over use of the medical system as long as there is some allowance for the genuinely chronically ill.

Deficit levy for high income earners ? As this doesn't apply to me I don't really care. I'll leave it to Liberal supporters to decide if it's a broken promise.

One area where savings could be made is in family benefit payments. I don't see the point in taking money from people with one hand and giving back with the other, after passing it through an expensive bureaucratic filter. These benefits should be phased out over time and replaced with reductions in the income tax rates. Although it's politically incorrect to say this, I think there is an over reliance on family benefit payments by people from certain cultures with large families which sees some families getting more in benefits than they pay in tax, so abolishing family payments over time would address this imbalance.

Negative gearing on residential properties costs about $7 billion a year, and discourages home ownership, which is security for retirement, so I would phase this out over 5-7 years to let the market adjust.

Greater means testing for pensions and benefits I have no argument with, except for the inclusion of the primary residence. People should not be punished for living in quite modest homes when the housing bubble has increased the value of their land . On paper they may be asset rich, but still income poor so it would be inequitable to include the family home in means tests.

That is my wish list. I think it pays attention to both the revenue and expenditure sides of the budget and is equitable across all sectors of the community.

 

[bellenuit]

Labor would retain the carbon and mining taxes which are two sources of revenue the Coalition wants to abolish.

According to the latest figures, the Mining Tax costs more to run than it brings in. So that is not a revenue source, unless it is revamped and made more onerous on mining companies. But doing that runs the risk of driving investment on mining away and could result in less revenue being generated overall.

The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise. While Labor and the Greenies can dance with glee because their carbon tax has reduced carbon dioxide emissions in Australia, there will have been no reduction from a global perspective, as the countries that have taken our business will increase theirs by an amount similar to our emissions reduction. And if the competitors are in countries with less onerous emission controls that we impose, there may be an actual increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a global perspective.

In an open economy, business tax revenue is not proportional to tax rate. It is not inelastic. There are consequences of increasing the impost on businesses that must compete in an open environment.

 

[SirRumpole]

According to the latest figures, the Mining Tax costs more to run than it brings in. So that is not a revenue source, unless it is revamped and made more onerous on mining companies. But doing that runs the risk of driving investment on mining away and could result in less revenue being generated overall.

Norway has 28% company tax plus 50% resource rent tax and it hasn't made any difference to investment in its oil and gas resources and has resulted in a massive sovereign wealth fund that finances Norway's pension schemes. Contrast this to the Coalition's plans to finance pensions via raising the pension age.

The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise. While Labor and the Greenies can dance with glee because their carbon tax has reduced carbon dioxide emissions in Australia, there will have been no reduction from a global perspective, as the countries that have taken our business will increase theirs by an amount similar to our emissions reduction. And if the competitors are in countries with less onerous emission controls that we impose, there may be an actual increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a global perspective.

Increases in fuel excise levy is just another carbon tax that reduces our ability to compete and increases costs to business. What is the justification for that means of raising revenue over the current carbon tax ?

The Coalitions preference for building roads not public transport and then indexing the fuel tax excise is indicative that they are giving people no alternative but to be milch cows for open ended revenue raising via the petrol pumps.

 

[Calliope]

Labor says; Whatever it is we're agin it

SO let’s check what Labor has said about things the Abbott Government plans in Tuesday’s Budget to dig us out of this financial hole.

A temporary deficit tax on higher earners?

“Bad idea,” snaps Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. “Labor will have no part of it.”

A rise ”” maybe just 1c a litre ”” on the fuel excise, to help save us from the 10 more years of debt Treasury predicts?

It’s “regressive”, objects Labor’s Transport spokesman, Anthony Albanese, and a hit “bigger than the carbon price”

Well, how about charging people maybe $6 for doctors’ visits, to stop health costs exploding by the projected 70 per cent over the next decade?

“Poorer people will be unfairly hit,” howls Shorten. “We do not support a new GP tax.”

Then how about slowing the boom in disability pensions ”” now costing $15 billion a year ”” by checking if younger pensioners can do at least some work, as the Government suggested on Saturday?

“Why would you be punishing them?” complains Labor’s health spokesman Catherine King.

Surely the Government should at least raise the pension age to 70 by 2035, as Treasurer Joe Hockey announced, with the pension bill now soaring past $36 billion a year?

“Unfair,” declares Shorten. “Don’t pick on the pensioners.”

Could the Government just slow the rate of pension increases, then?

“The age pension is not a king’s ransom,” warns Shorten. “We will fight for the pensioners.”

How about making students pay more for their university degrees once they’re earning well, since those degrees are passports to higher incomes anyway?

“Get the priorities right,” scoffs Shorten. “I’m very worried the Abbott Government wants to make universities the preserve of children from well-off backgrounds alone.”

But what about reining in the NDIS, a bureaucracy-riddled disability scheme that threatens to cost an astonishing $11 billion a year?

“No,’’ snaps Opposition families spokesman Jenny Macklin. “No cuts, no delay to the National Disability Insurance Scheme”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-duty-to-save-us/story-fni0ffxg-1226913511211

 

[Knobby22]

Gee, it reminds me of someone else recently. Can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[overhang]

The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise. While Labor and the Greenies can dance with glee because their carbon tax has reduced carbon dioxide emissions in Australia, there will have been no reduction from a global perspective, as the countries that have taken our business will increase theirs by an amount similar to our emissions reduction. And if the competitors are in countries with less onerous emission controls that we impose, there may be an actual increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a global perspective.

+1 Such a good summary on why a carbon tax is completely counter productive that unlike most other arguments against the carbon tax doesn't just dismiss global warming completely. For me it's also the fact that even if Australia produced zero emissions next year that the 1.2% we contribute would be completely negated by China's increasing emissions next year.

 

[Calliope]

Gee, it reminds me of someone else recently. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Let me have a guess... Rudd? Gillard? Swann? Milne?

 

[noco]

Gee, it reminds me of someone else recently. Can't quite put my finger on it.

It was Albo when he accused the Liberal opposition of saying NO..NO..NO..NO..NO to everything.....but the Comrades of the Greens will tell you in their next breath how clever they were in passing so much legislation through with the help of the Liberals...something like about 99%.....correct me if I am wrong.

 

[overhang]

Labor says; Whatever it is we're agin it

I didn't even need to click the link to see that was Bolt's work. Comments like "snaps Opposition Leader Bill Shorten"
“Get the priorities right,” scoffs Shorten" Says more about Bolt's journalism than Shorten's remarks imo

But Knobby is right, I think the only policy Abbott ever supported while in opposition was the huge pay rise for themselves.

 

[SirRumpole]

+1 Such a good summary on why a carbon tax is completely counter productive that unlike most other arguments against the carbon tax doesn't just dismiss global warming completely. For me it's also the fact that even if Australia produced zero emissions next year that the 1.2% we contribute would be completely negated by China's increasing emissions next year.

Funny that people don't seem to be raising the same objections to raising the petrol tax excise.

Your point about our emissions compared to those of other countries is accepted, but why ditch the CT as a revenue source and replace it with one that is equally as damaging and will go up year after year. It is a self generating tax, fuel prices rise, inflation goes up the excise increases, fuel prices rise more, and so on. We are being set up by this indexation rort more than we were by the carbon tax, because there is no compensation for the excise increase.

 

[drsmith]

I think the only policy Abbott ever supported while in opposition was the huge pay rise for themselves.

Selective memory disorder ??

He supported the NDIS and the associated Medicare levy rise which come into place on July 1 this year.

He also supported a number of budget measures proposed by Labor in the lead up to 2013 election that Labor itself now no longer support.

 

[sydboy007]

Labor says; Whatever it is we're agin it

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-duty-to-save-us/story-fni0ffxg-1226913511211

I seem to remember Abbott went into bat quite strongly to protect those who would end up paying for their cars under the changes to car FBT legislation. Maybe he was considering increasing the fuel excise back then?

If the carbon reduction scheme was going to be a wrecking ball on the economy, then wont the fuel excise increase turn into a wrecking ball within a few years? Each 1c rise in fuel excise is like a $4 / tonne carbon tax. So within 6 years we've hit the wrecking ball $24/tonne level.