The Abbott Government

[drsmith]

Recognise that painting Fairfax and The ABC as Jihadists because they are just doing their job as the Press is just wrong?

Fairfax can be as biased as it likes. It's not publically funded.

The ABC on the other hand is publically funded.

 

[trainspotter]

Will the "peoples bank" pay a decent rate of interest instead of the paltry <3 % now offered by those private custodians of the cookie jar? If so I am in.

Those thieving bastards pay a disgraceful 0.01% per annum on basic savings (Comm Bank - Complete Access, Smart Access, Streamline, accounts). I am sure many people confuse this figure with 1%.

If you have $1 million in one of these accounts, they pay a whopping $100 interest for the whole f***ing year. How about a Royal Commission into the bloody banks?

Who has one million rupiah in the bank account these days. I do .... who underwrote the BIG 4 BANKS when the GFC hit???

ANALYSIS
By Bouris and Joye
Posted 7 Feb 2012, 12:38pm

Prior to the global financial crisis, Australia had a diverse and highly competitive financial system. The four major banks went head-to-head with the likes of St. George, BankWest, Bendigo Bank, Aussie, Adelaide Bank, RAMS, Wizard, and Challenger.

Today every single one of these entities has disappeared as a genuinely independent concern, wholly or partly acquired by the majors (with competition concerns waived by the ACCC), or merged with one another.

Prior to the crisis, Australia's banks were not explicitly government-backed. And taxpayers had never guaranteed bank deposits before (or conceived of providing such guarantees for free as they currently do), nor had they ever guaranteed the banks' institutional debts.

The taxpayer-owned central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), had also never lent to the banks on the much longer-dated and more flexible terms that it offered as the financial markets meltdown started to gather momentum, and continues to offer to this day.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-07/joye--/3815636

Written 3 and a 1/2 years ago ... *shy*

 

[banco]

Labor wouldn't nationalise the banks, just the risk.

Risk is already nationalised through deposit insurance the bank deposit tax would have somewhat defrayed the cost of that insurance but that would have upset Tony Abbott's golf buddies.

 

[drsmith]

Risk is already nationalised through deposit insurance the bank deposit tax would have somewhat defrayed the cost of that insurance but that would have upset Tony Abbott's golf buddies.

I refer to what I've already said,

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...27364&page=373&p=881280&viewfull=1#post881280

 

[drsmith]

Will the "peoples bank" pay a decent rate of interest instead of the paltry <3 % now offered by those private custodians of the cookie jar? If so I am in.

Those thieving bastards pay a disgraceful 0.01% per annum on basic savings (Comm Bank - Complete Access, Smart Access, Streamline, accounts). I am sure many people confuse this figure with 1%.

If you have $1 million in one of these accounts, they pay a whopping $100 interest for the whole f***ing year. How about a Royal Commission into the bloody banks?

Regardless of the rate or account balance, imagine for a moment the banks itemising it on depositor's account statements as they did with former bank taxes such as FID and BAD.

It was a dumb idea in more ways than one.

With regard to present deposit rates, options exist to get more than 3% from the majors.

 

[sydboy007]

A am and I remember who created it.

Borrow and tax is the Labor way and in keeping with that, the bank deposits tax was originally their idea.

But then Abbott has added over $100B of new borrowings in 2 years. Is that also a borrow and tax way, because I was under the impression that surpluses were part of the Liberal DNA.

Pop over to http://aofm.gov.au/

Australian Government Securities on Issue* $384,687m

I bet you that figure will not be going down any time soon.

When does it stop being Labor's fault?

 

[sydboy007]

Labor wouldn't nationalise the banks, just the risk.

The risk is ALREADY nationalised.

Free deposit guarantee provided by tax payers.

Free implicit Govt backing of the banks that is recognised by the ratings agencies and provides them with a two notch improvement in their ratings.

One would think that a Liberal party supporting the free market would be supportive of having explicit charges for this kind of support.

MT is arguing that the metro to rural subsidies should be explicit rather than hidden with NBNs pricing model.

 

[sydboy007]

Peter's a dill.

We all know that.

Yet PM Abbott and Liberal party leader has appointed said dill, seen him right royally stuff up then rather than move him to the back bench where he belongs, gives said dill anohter ministerial position on which he's now stuffing up again.

Possibly if the Govt got it's own house in order the newspapers would be more focused on myley cyrus or the latest <insert word> gate from around the world.

 

[skyQuake]

Here's a blast from just over 2 years ago...

 

[drsmith]

The risk is ALREADY nationalised.

Yes. By LABOR.

I can just imagine every pensioner's 6-monthly savings account statement with the itemised line "LABOR's bank deposit tax".

 

[drsmith]

But then Abbott has added over $100B of new borrowings in 2 years. Is that also a borrow and tax way, because I was under the impression that surpluses were part of the Liberal DNA.

Pop over to http://aofm.gov.au/

Australian Government Securities on Issue* $384,687m

I bet you that figure will not be going down any time soon.

When does it stop being Labor's fault?

Labor left many legacies.

One was an attempt to fund and build a nationalised broadband network.
Another was outsourcing immigration to illegal people smuggling operations and another was budget deficits stretching well beyond its time in office.

 

[SirRumpole]

Labor left many legacies.

One was an attempt to fund and build a nationalised broadband network.

So why didn't Abbott/Turnbull ditch the NBN altogether if it was such a bad idea ?

Another was outsourcing immigration to illegal people smuggling operations and another was budget deficits stretching well beyond its time in office.

A budget deficit which Hockey has now doubled.

And now he's talking about tax cuts. What deficit disaster ?

 

[noco]

So why didn't Abbott/Turnbull ditch the NBN altogether if it was such a bad idea ?



A budget deficit which Hockey has now doubled.

And now he's talking about tax cuts. What deficit disaster ?

Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.

 

[SirRumpole]

Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.

No they're not. The previous governments agreement was a FTTP NBN, now we get a cut down version that has huge technical problems and unconnected services

http://www.afr.com/technology/nbn-hits-roll-out-targets-but-fails-to-connect-services-20140605-jg00k

 

[drsmith]

No they're not. The previous governments agreement was a FTTP NBN, now we get a cut down version that has huge technical problems and unconnected services

http://www.afr.com/technology/nbn-hits-roll-out-targets-but-fails-to-connect-services-20140605-jg00k

Take a look at the date of the article and the timeframe of the issue,

About 118,000 homes and businesses that should be connected to the national broadband network can’t use the service because of defective fibre connections.

The government-owned company building the network is set to pay *contractors tens of millions extra to fix the problems and resolve a two-year negotiation stalemate

For more background, listen to Simon Hackett's presentation from a year ago,

http://simonhackett.com/2014/09/06/rebooting-the-nbn/

 

[noco]

Take a look at the date of the article and the timeframe of the issue,



For more background, listen to Simon Hackett's presentation from a year ago,

http://simonhackett.com/2014/09/06/rebooting-the-nbn/

Good work Doc.

Some just don't do their home work.

 

[sydboy007]

Yes. By LABOR.

I can just imagine every pensioner's 6-monthly savings account statement with the itemised line "LABOR's bank deposit tax".

Are you saying that the deposit guarantee by Labor was wrong?

You do remember it was done during the GFC, where smaller banks were starting to see a run on withdrawals.

Once Irish banks received sovereign backing it filtered very quickly throughout the world, where explicit schemes like the FDIC was not already in place.

Where Labor went wrong was in not charging for this valuable insurance. They made quite a bit from the guaranteeing of the bank debt during the GFC. Was that wrong as well?

Labor left many legacies.

One was an attempt to fund and build a nationalised broadband network.
Another was outsourcing immigration to illegal people smuggling operations and another was budget deficits stretching well beyond its time in office.

So things like the freezing of fuel excise indexation, halving of CGT, tax free super, halving of the pension asset taper rate, stretch till now. Just the freezing of fuel indexation was robbing the Govt of over $5B in revenue last year. We're talking in the tens of billion in revenue lost on an annual basis, and over the last 15 years would have provided the kind of revenue required to make a decent dent in the infrastructure deficit we face.

Tax cuts based on revenue from the largest resource boom in the world were unsustainable, and yes Labor were foolish for going along with Howard in providing further ones after the 2007 election. The issues we face are not all legacies from the Labor Government.

 

[sydboy007]

Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.

Labor was very open in their opposition of the $1M per meter tunnel that the Victorian and Federal Liberals were unwilling to have vetted by IA as they knew the project didn't stack up economically.

Would you have supported federal Labor if they had copied the Victorian Liberals and signed NBN contracts for the entire project prior to the election?

Shoudl a Govt have the right, just before an election, to force through major spending on a project when the opposition is openly against it and the public is divided. Shouldn't it be up to the people?

 

[sydboy007]

Take a look at the date of the article and the timeframe of the issue,



For more background, listen to Simon Hackett's presentation from a year ago,

http://simonhackett.com/2014/09/06/rebooting-the-nbn/

Only took the Liberals 2.5 months to break their NBN promise.

 

[SirRumpole]

Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.

I simply don't believe that. I the Libs thought that the NBN was a white elephant they had a duty to oppose it at the election and promise to dump it. Instead they knew it was an essential piece of infrastructure that they didn't have the foresight to realise during the 11 years of Howard. Their "market economy" minds assumed that private enterprise would build it if the public wanted it.

That is a failure of their ideology. They are either giant hypocrites or stupendous wastrels as far as the NBN is concerned.