- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
A good question.
I don't think he will at the moment, he may wait to see how he fairs with the new senate.
The Abbott Government
- Thread starter Calliope
- Start date
A good question.
I don't think he will at the moment, he may wait to see how he fairs with the new senate.
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
He'll get fuel excise indexation through the current senate (Greens support) and the deficit levy as well (likely Labor support).
The new senate though is what the chest beating is about.
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
The following article has more on this.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/fede...huge-shortfall-in-funding-20140513-388b8.html
In his post budget presser, Joe Hockey has stated that funding is still increasing in real terms.
Attachments
Tell these smarty pants economists to stick their fancy degrees up their ass and that noco knows better.
wayneL
'Abba Shboq Lhon'
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,468
- Reactions
- 12,509
Sarcasm and appeal to authority fallacy all in the same sentence.... Impressive banco.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,570
- Reactions
- 11,823
It seems that Tim Wilson has kept his $390k salary + $50k expenses job.
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,889
- Reactions
- 1,548
K.Rudd comes to power in 07, inheriting a surplus
We have the biggest mining boom in modern Australian history during the years ALP were in power
Gillard & Co leave with "massive" billion dollar holes
Abbott & Co. try to clean up ALP the mess and are labeled stingy and tight-ass.
We have the biggest mining boom in modern Australian history during the years ALP were in power
Gillard & Co leave with "massive" billion dollar holes
Abbott & Co. try to clean up ALP the mess and are labeled stingy and tight-ass.
- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
Pretty much sums it up in a nutshell really. In the 935 days between becoming prime minister on December 3, 2007, and Julia Gillard's coup of June 24, 2010, Rudd left Australians with at least $153 billion in unfunded fiscal burdens while wasting $100bn of the community's resources. "Le laissez-faire, c'est fini"
Anyone want to return their $900 cheques yet?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,570
- Reactions
- 11,823
Just because they are doing something, doesn't mean they are doing the right things.
Why throw out an installed carbon tax and replace it with a fuel excise indexation monster that will feed on the price rises that it itself causes and increase the cost of living for everyone ?
Why make the sick and elderly pay increased costs for health when by increasing the Medicare levy, everyone contributes to the health system ?
Why put a joke tax on high income earners for three years only, and cut family benefits permanently ?
Why not implement a resource rent tax that mining companies can't avoid ? BHP doubled its profit in the last Fin Year.
Why not implement a super profit tax on banks whose profits have been soaring ?
Despite the Coalitions smarmy statements that the budget is fair, it most definitely is not.
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,889
- Reactions
- 1,548
"Purchasing" "carbon credits" from China is a joke.
As I have stated before, the $900 cheques were only a loan from Kevin Rudd and now we must pay it back with interest one way or another.
Emma Albrechtsen sums it up fairly well in Abbott's first budget, the Coalition have set the bar high and if they are able to hurdle it in their first term, voters are more likely to understand the need for some initial tightening of the belt.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...asier-to-stomach/story-e6frg7bo-1226916134838
- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 26,998
- Reactions
- 23,489
Because the carbon tax put another impost on our already strugling small business and manufacturing sector. Our business costs are stupidly high already( wages and taxes), to add further costs on top was just dumb. When you have ground all the employers into the ground what then. Dumb politics.
New Zealand, U.K have 22% business tax, we tax 30% and Labor want to up that, dumb,dumb,dumb.
Anything that is percieved to be free is abused, taken for granted and generaly abused, human nature. You can poo pah it as much as you like but history proves it
Because it makes $3billion, that you don't have to fork out.
Because the banks lend out $100 for every $7 - 8 they take in, they are going to have to hold more residual backup.
The problem with a super profit tax is one year you have a super profit, the next year the world goes ar$e up ala gfc and everyone screams why haven't you got the money.
You can't say to a company "if you do business and invest in Australia, our tax rate is 30%". "However if you start doing really well we will tax you more", it would be easier just to introduce tax brackets for business.
It's a bit like Labor saying the coalition should have given Qantas money when they announced a $300million loss.
$100million of that was carbon tax? What the.
It is fair, they have reduced spending without stopping jobs growth. Too many people living in the me,me,me bubble.
You know you'd think a party that spent the last 3 years crucifying the Labor party for their broken promises would actually attempt not to break too many promises in their first budget.
To the budget itself it's tough as we suspected and probably needed to be but it's always going to be argued which parts are a bit too severe. For mine it boggles my mind how this government can make the youth wait 6 months to receive any welfare (which they're upping to 25 to receive the dole, until then they will recieve the lesser payment of newstart) and then 6 months on the dole in which case after that time they will go for another 6 months cycle with no pay, but yet businesses will receive 10k bonuses for employing over 50's. So on one hand they're saying go and get a job or study and on the other they are encouraging employers to employ their older job competitors instead. Combine this with the many in the public sector that will lose their jobs because of the many cuts, the record high youth unemployment and you end up putting disadvantaged youth in quite a vulnerable position.
They have scrapped the First Home Savers Accounts all whilst ignoring negative gearing which as we know drives up house prices making it difficult for first home buyers to enter the market.
I really think the $7 gp visits are counterintuitive, in my town the clinic doesn't offer bulk billing. Our A&E often have people arriving with minor problems such as headaches, tooth aches etc. This results in more paperwork and they're normally more conservative in A&E and sometimes run unnecessary tests, all this costs time which could be spent providing care for patients that actually need it. I wouldn't say it's a huge problem but this $7 dollar fee is going to have some flow on affect into A&E so some money saved by this policy will defer onto other departments.
To the budget itself it's tough as we suspected and probably needed to be but it's always going to be argued which parts are a bit too severe. For mine it boggles my mind how this government can make the youth wait 6 months to receive any welfare (which they're upping to 25 to receive the dole, until then they will recieve the lesser payment of newstart) and then 6 months on the dole in which case after that time they will go for another 6 months cycle with no pay, but yet businesses will receive 10k bonuses for employing over 50's. So on one hand they're saying go and get a job or study and on the other they are encouraging employers to employ their older job competitors instead. Combine this with the many in the public sector that will lose their jobs because of the many cuts, the record high youth unemployment and you end up putting disadvantaged youth in quite a vulnerable position.
They have scrapped the First Home Savers Accounts all whilst ignoring negative gearing which as we know drives up house prices making it difficult for first home buyers to enter the market.
I really think the $7 gp visits are counterintuitive, in my town the clinic doesn't offer bulk billing. Our A&E often have people arriving with minor problems such as headaches, tooth aches etc. This results in more paperwork and they're normally more conservative in A&E and sometimes run unnecessary tests, all this costs time which could be spent providing care for patients that actually need it. I wouldn't say it's a huge problem but this $7 dollar fee is going to have some flow on affect into A&E so some money saved by this policy will defer onto other departments.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 26,998
- Reactions
- 23,489
There are two things to keep in mind.
1. nothing is cast in stone.
2. Any enacted initiative, if it proves counter productive, can be changed.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 26,998
- Reactions
- 23,489
This broken promise rant is really funny.
If the Coalition did nothing and the budget kept spiralling out of control.
Would the press and Labor say "well done we're in the $hit, but you didn't break your promise"
Or would they say.
"Australia is in a bigger mess than when the coalition took office. They are useless and need throwing out"
What a bunch of muppets, people need their heads read,IMO.
If the Coalition did nothing and the budget kept spiralling out of control.
Would the press and Labor say "well done we're in the $hit, but you didn't break your promise"
Or would they say.
"Australia is in a bigger mess than when the coalition took office. They are useless and need throwing out"
What a bunch of muppets, people need their heads read,IMO.
It would be argued that they shouldn't have made those commitments pre-election if they had no intentions of keeping them. I would not have such a hard time with this if this government didn't campaign so hard regarding Labor's broken promises but as it is they have shot themselves in the foot. And the ridiculous thing is they didn't need to make these promises to win the election, they just had to show up.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 26,998
- Reactions
- 23,489
So therefore now they find themselves in office, they should do nothing, rather than hurt your feelings. Priceless
I didn't realise your feelings were so important in the scheme of things. How many times in your life have you made a commitment that due to changed circumstances you couldn't keep.
I do agree that politicians make stupid promises, its has always happened, and the politicians are judged at the election as to whether it was worth it.
Gillard was judged harshly because the electorate couldn't reconcile the broken promise, with the percieved gains.
Abbott will be judged likewise.
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
There's an important difference. Like Peter Costello's first budget, this effort relates to fixing the fiscal imbalance. The carbon tax did not.
Also, by making the more politically difficult decisions now, this government is not setting itself up for ever increasing reactionary responses like the Gillard government did as the budget situation worsened.
In other words, it's better politically to take the greater corrective action in the first budget than have fiscal policy look like a rudderless (no pun intended) ship for an entire term.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 26,998
- Reactions
- 23,489
Well said doc.