The Albanese government

[farmerge]

Just a quick observation, Albo turned up in the cricket commentary box during the Sydney Test and said he was back at work!

Some job.

Airline must have cancelld the flight he was booked on !!!!!

 

[IFocus]

But in reality that is the only option the middle class has, neither side of politics wants to address the underlying issue of a not fit for purpose taxation system, so the only option the middle class has to secure their childrens future is by securing their own. Simple really.

Not true Labor have had several goes but get the another big tax campaign against them meanwhile Gina makes another billion or two while fighting off her kids over the inheritance.

The Coalition had 10 years to address tax but the lazy Liberals just gave away unfunded tax cuts to the wealthy and called it reform.

The problems are structure right across the board and started under Howard giving away money to buy votes, Labor have actually temporarily balanced the budget and all you get is calls from the Coalition to spend by giving more handouts, strange times.

 

[sptrawler]

Not true Labor have had several goes but get the another big tax campaign against them meanwhile Gina makes another billion or two while fighting off her kids over the inheritance.

Labor as I've said on numerous occasions come up with great ideas and then stuff up the implementation, most of the time they backfire or just end up costing bizarre amounts. Fringe benefits tax on mining town housing, has lead to FIFO and mining towns becoming dumps and are falling into disrepair.
The Resource super profits tax, great idea except they can't even get them to pay tax let alone super profits tax they are still chasing down offshoring profits. IMO a volumetric tax like Brendon Grylls was promoting would have been simpler and easier to administer, as royalties already are in effect and have been for years.
Negative gearing take it off established, leave it available to the rich, why not just cap it? You bring up Gina, what about the rich, that would have got richer on that negative gearing one?
Like I say, both sides are as bad as one another, just look at it objectively, labor do a better job of courting the media that's the main difference.

The Coalition had 10 years to address tax but the lazy Liberals just gave away unfunded tax cuts to the wealthy and called it reform.

Isn't that what Labor are doing this year? They keep confirming the stage 3 tax cuts are still on, so what are you actually saying?
From memory I recall Howard and Costello saying, we are running a surplus and there is no pressing expenditure therefore we are returning the tax, in the form of cuts.
I don't know what you recall, when you say that they gave unfunded tax cuts, like I say keep the same narrative for both sides of politics.

The problems are structure right across the board and started under Howard giving away money to buy votes, Labor have actually temporarily balanced the budget and all you get is calls from the Coalition to spend by giving more handouts, strange times.

Jeezus you are so one eyed, didn't Albo say they are going to give further handouts and aren't they running a surplus with the aid of extra tax receipts, that are being driven by inflation.
Howard was 20years ago how many leaders have been in since then? Even if they did something back then, it would have worked its way through the system by now, you really need to look at things in a less polarised manner IMO.
But hey whatever rows your boat.

 

[SirRumpole]

From memory I recall Howard and Costello saying, we are running a surplus and there is no pressing expenditure therefore we are returning the tax, in the form of cuts.

Trouble is, when the manure hits the fan and the economy turns bad and you need that money to support basic services, it isn't there.

There should be a "Provision for bad times" account where "spare" money goes and is used when needed.

 

[sptrawler]

Trouble is, when the manure hits the fan and the economy turns bad and you need that money to support basic services, it isn't there.

There should be a "Provision for bad times" account where "spare money goes and is used when needed.

I agree with what Albo says, Federal parliamentary cycles need to be longer, it would make planning easier and also stop policy that is just media grabbing but is needed to get re elected.
It really doesn't allow for long term planning, it also doesn't allow for Governments to learn from their mistakes, but it also becomes a positive feedback loop people don't trust politicians so they flip them.
I just wish they would start and reverse some of the obviously outdated and not fit for purpose policies, times change and Government/Public service needs to change as well.
I see the Fiona Stanley hospital built, with a massive new aged care buildings going up, why wouldn't it be possible to re introduce on site nursing training schools at the hospitals, it would have to help alleviate the staff shortages and produce better nurses.IMO
Just relocate the lecturers to the nursing colleges, attached to the public hospitals, it couldn't be too complex could it?
A lot of things need to be re looked at, in light of a massively changing world.

 

[sptrawler]

Trouble is, when the manure hits the fan and the economy turns bad and you need that money to support basic services, it isn't there.

There should be a "Provision for bad times" account where "spare" money goes and is used when needed.

Just addressing that actually issue and at the same time showing that it all depends on the narrative, the fact that the Government made a surplus was actually due to an accounting change.
Also it was brought about by the sovereign wealth fund that Howard and Costello started, funny how memories fade and perceptions change. Also some wanting to re write history.
Just saying.
May 10 2023

Rule change helps deliver first surplus in 15 years

A methodology change has enabled Labor to forecast a slender surplus for 2022-23, the first in 15 years. If the same rule has been in force a few years ago, Josh Frydenberg could have claimed bragging rights, too.

www.afr.com

Labor may be on track to deliver the first budget surplus in 15 years, but under the same methodology used to calculate the $4.2 billion forecast on Tuesday, the Coalition would have delivered a $7.2 billion surplus four years earlier.

That is because since the 2020-21 budget and onwards, the net earnings from the Future Fund have been counted towards the budget bottom line.

 

[SirRumpole]

That is because since the 2020-21 budget and onwards, the net earnings from the Future Fund have been counted towards the budget bottom line.

Interesting, didn't know that.

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting, didn't know that.

But you did hear endlessly, the first surplus in 15 years.
Just the way it is, that's why IMO you have to be very objective and remove the white noise, I think Labor are doing a good job they have to crank up inflation.
The only thing I think they are doing wrong is not putting a lid on housing, there is no point in giving people a 6% pay rise and an extra $$2.5k a year in the workers pocket, when what they are saving for has gone up $100-$200k and the rent has taken the $2.5k anyway.
Apart from that they've done o.k, but it could cost them the next election IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

But you did hear endlessly, the first surplus in 15 years.
Just the way it is, that's why IMO you have to be very objective and remove the white noise, I think Labor are doing a good job they have to crank up inflation.
The only thing I think they are doing wrong is not putting a lid on housing, there is no point in giving people a 6% pay rise and an extra $$2.5k a year in the workers pocket, when what they are saving for has gone up $100-$200k and the rent has taken the $2.5k anyway.
Apart from that they've done o.k, but it could cost them the next election IMO.

Yep, housing and energy prices, the election deciders.

But really, what did 9 years of the Coalition do about these problems ?

Just made them worse imo.

 

[sptrawler]

Yep, housing and energy prices, the election deciders.

But really, what did 9 years of the Coalition do about these problems ?

Just made them worse imo.

The coalition didn't do anything about the housing, but that probably cost them the election, remember there was a lot of media coverage about how young people couldn't get into the housing market and the baby boomers were to blame + the Government was doing nothing about it.
You have to remember Labor got in by the skin of its teeth and Morrison had been hammered into a corner by the media, so it isn't as though they had a landslide win.

Well the problem is now on steroids, just because the media doesn't want to talk about it every day, doesn't mean it has gone away, it just means the media don't want to talk about it.
Now the narrative is about social issues and pressuring this Govt in that direction, that is what will probably cost them the election, middle Australia has been dumped by the media but Labor already has the social vote it needs the middle vote.
There was a promise of battery industries, keeping our essential minerals here, cheaper electricity and affordable housing.
Well hmmmmmm. I guess we will just have to see how this year goes.

 

[wayneL]

Trouble is, when the manure hits the fan and the economy turns bad and you need that money to support basic services, it isn't there.

There should be a "Provision for bad times" account where "spare" money goes and is used when needed.

Well that's the part of Keynesianism that all governments seem ignore.

 

[Smurf1976]

Well that's the part of Keynesianism that all governments seem ignore.

I recall some going a step further and actively arguing against it in the past.

 

[sptrawler]

I recall some going a step further and actively arguing against it in the past.

There is constant chatter about raiding the future fund.

 

[wayneL]

I recall some going a step further and actively arguing against it in the past.

Oh, but they will invoke Keynesianism when they want to start splashing cash around, as we have seen.

Frankenomics.

 

[Smurf1976]

There is constant chatter about raiding the future fund.

The only real wealth governments retain is that which goes into durable and immovable physical assets.

Bridges, dams, railways, energy infrastructure, etc.

Even that only survives if it's not sold off or ruined.

Such is the problem with politics. It simply can't manage money. Even if someone good comes along who does the right thing, government will be back in a mess within one generation.

 

[Smurf1976]

At least it's not Tasmania copping the wrath of the feds this time around:

A blindsided Victorian government is scrambling to meet its offshore wind target timeline after the federal government rejected a new terminal at the Port of Hastings, with project documents showing the decision could throw the state’s energy transition into disarray.

Victoria’s energy transition in strife as ‘essential’ offshore wind hub refused

Victoria has been sent scrambling to meet its offshore wind targets after the rejection of a project that was critical to building nine gigawatts of power by 2040.

www.theage.com.au

They say history doesn't repeat but it sure does seem to be rhyming. I always thought Back To The Future was a purely fictional movie but we do indeed seem to be reliving its era just with a change of detail.

 

[PZ99]

Heh heh,,, future fund earnings have been added to the budget for the last decade. Check the historical figures

This surplus was much bigger than that AFR article predicted thanks to exports.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter how it's constructed... as long as it happens

 

[mullokintyre]

Heh heh,,, future fund earnings have been added to the budget for the last decade. Check the historical figures

This surplus was much bigger than that AFR article predicted thanks to exports.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter how it's constructed... as long as it happens

It would be a little more helpful if you provided a link to the historical figures you suggest we check, which i assume ypou have already checked yourself.
The original AFR article said the net earnings from the Future Find were included from the 2020- 2021 budget.
One might assume that from the statement, the net earnings were not included in prior years.
Mick

 

[IFocus]

Consultation paper

The Treatment of Future Fund Earnings Post-2020 The Future Fund Act 2006 stipulates that money may not be withdrawn from the Future Fund until 1 July 2020 unless the balance exceeds the target asset level, which is broadly equivalent to the amount of the Commonwealth’s superannuation liability. The year 2020 was chosen as this was the point by which, according to the Government’s 2002 Intergenerational Report, the Commonwealth Government’s finances were expected to be significantly affected by the costs of an ageing population. After 2020, the assets of the Future Fund can only be drawn upon to meet the unfunded superannuation liability in a particular financial year. Once payments are made from the Future Fund, the earnings and future costs of the Future Fund will be included in the underlying cash balance, as the annual drawdown of the Future Fund will be used to meet recurrent superannuation costs each year (already included in the underlying cash balance).

https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/budget_treatment_of_future_fund_costs_consultation_paper.pdf

 

[PZ99]

It would be a little more helpful if you provided a link to the historical figures you suggest we check, which i assume ypou have already checked yourself.
The original AFR article said the net earnings from the Future Find were included from the 2020- 2021 budget.
One might assume that from the statement, the net earnings were not included in prior years.
Mick

Never assume anything you read in the media.

Future fund earnings have been added to the budget since day dot.

The only change in 2020 was money being drawn down.