The Wasteful Liberals

[sails]

... I think you're kidding yourself if you think the Libs would have done much different through the last five years.

Libs running up $260 billion in debt with a $12 billion annual interest charge? Sorry ML, but it is you that has to be kidding...lol

And would they have built so many tuckshops the size of cubby houses? While they would have likely done something for the GFC to help stimulate the economy, I don't they would have gone for the overkill that labor did.

And our borders would likely still be secure - that alone would have saved $6 billion.

No, they are NOT alike - that is very fanciful thinking on your part!! Is it an attempt to try and gloss over the horrific fiscal management of the last five years?

 

[McLovin]

Libs running up $260 billion in debt with a $12 billion annual interest charge? Sorry ML, but it is you that has to be kidding...lol

Meh, the current government takes in less revenue as a % of GDP than the previous government.

Is it an attempt to try and gloss over the horrific fiscal management of the last five years?

Do you automatically assume anyone who doesn't share your narrow view of the world is somehow trying to play for the other team?

Half the time it's not even worth commenting on these sort of threads because of moronic responses like this.

I haven't tried to gloss over anything. You need to take your blinkers off once in a while and realise that just because someone doesn't think the Libs are the superheros of the universe means that they think the ALP is.

 

[Julia]

just because someone doesn't think the Libs are the superheros of the universe means that they think the ALP is.

This applies to both 'sides' from the rusted on disciples of both Liberal and Labor.
Sadly, all governments indulge in spin and wasteful spending to buy votes.
This behaviour has become the norm, it seems.
If only it were not a forlorn hope to wish that a government could act in the best interests of the population it was elected to serve.

 

[MrBurns]

Adelaide State labor

$2 billion on a Desal plant.
Now Mothballed---we dont use it.

Liberal---waste???

All governments bleed $$s.

Thats small beer, here in Vic we have to pay $1Billion a year for 15 years or something like that for our desal plant which has never been switched on.

Oh sorry $20 billion over 30 years......

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ain-on-taxpayers/story-fn59niix-1226013811990

 

[drsmith]

Fiscal management by the latter years of the Howard Government was poor, but in comparison, Labor since has been shocking.

The main difference is that The Coalition prefers to hand it back to the taxpayer whereas Labor prefers to waste it directly themselves.

The latter is worse in my view.

 

[sails]

Fiscal management by the latter years of the Howard Government was poor, but in comparison, Labor since has been shocking.

The main difference is that The Coalition prefers to hand it back to the taxpayer whereas Labor prefers to waste it directly themselves.

The latter is worse in my view.

And I don't get all the bleating about middle class welfare. Instead of giving across the board tax cuts to the middle class, I understand the "welfare" the left go on about is effectively lowering the tax rate a bit for those with children while keeping it at a higher level for those without the expense of children.

Some couples without children and where both have high paying jobs clearly don't have the expenses of raising a family.

However, it seems to be a convenient thing for the left to bleat on about middle class welfare. If I am wrong, I am sure I will be told in no uncertain terms...

 

[McLovin]

And I don't get all the bleating about middle class welfare. Instead of giving across the board tax cuts to the middle class, I understand the "welfare" the left go on about is effectively lowering the tax rate a bit for those with children while keeping it at a higher level for those without the expense of children.

Some couples without children and where both have high paying jobs clearly don't have the expenses of raising a family.

Why is it encumbent on me to pay for someone else's choices in life? Or inverted, why should someone have children and expect the taxpayer to pay for it?

"Lowering the tax rate a bit" is quite an understatement.

 

[sails]

Why is it encumbent on me to pay for someone else's choices in life? Or inverted, why should someone have children and expect the taxpayer to pay for it?

That's not what I said...!! AND I don't think the little bit of family tax or whatever they get would go anywhere near raising a child. The parents would still be shouldering most of the expense. It seems you have no idea of what really happens!

So you would rather that any middle class tax cuts go across the board rather than find a means to keep tax higher for those who can more easily afford it and, instead of giving a tax cut, they give some back to middle class with families who would not have as much disposable income as the DINKs?

I thought our tax system was based on income. Those with little income get more government support - perhaps you don't like that either. There is a big difference in disposable income between middle class DINKs and those with children possibility where only one parent works anyway.

I don't see it as a hand out, it seems it is a means of allowing tax cuts to families rather than to middle income DINKs who probably have it pretty good. I know such a couple who are still quite young and they already live in several properties. Good on them and that's their choice, but why should they get the same tax cuts as those raising families, paying for education (helping with skilled workers in the future) and creating the next generation of Aussies?

I don't think you get my point at all! I shouldn't have to keep spelling it out...

 

[drsmith]

The fundamental problem with the increases in so-called middle class welfare is that the primary reason it was doshed out was to buy swinging voters.

Efficiency in tax transfer and the longer term ramifications were a very distant second.

 

[sails]

The fundamental problem with the increases in so-called middle class welfare is that the primary reason it was doshed out was to buy swinging voters.

Efficiency in tax transfer and the longer term ramifications were a very distant second.

so labor are unlikely to change it? They've had five years (and a couple of years with a friendly senate) to correct anything they didn't like under Howard. Although that's a bit scary when you think of the mess they have made of border control and other things such as pink batts and BER.

I

 

[McLovin]

That's not what I said...!! AND I don't think the little bit of family tax or whatever they get would go anywhere near raising a child. The parents would still be shouldering most of the expense. It seems you have no idea of what really happens!

It's not supposed to raise a child. If you want kids, you pay for them, not me.

Median income is ~$67k. Tax on that would be $13,300. FTB A for two kids would be $4,100. That's 30% less tax than a couple on the same income with no children.

So you would rather that any middle class tax cuts go across the board rather than find a means to keep tax higher for those who can more easily afford it

Yes. Someone who has decided not to have children and with the extra money plan to retire earlier or go traveling or just sit at home and play X Box is punished by the tax system. Whether they can afford to pay tax or can't is irrelevant, the tax system should be fair.

I thought our tax system was based on income.

It should be. Two people doing the same job getting the same pay should pay the same amount in tax.

The fundamental problem with the increases in so-called middle class welfare is that the primary reason it was doshed out was to buy swinging voters.

Efficiency in tax transfer and the longer term ramifications were a very distant second.

Exactly

so labor are unlikely to change it? They've had five years (and a couple of years with a friendly senate) to correct anything they didn't like under Howard. Although that's a bit scary when you think of the mess they have made of border control and other things such as pink batts and BER.

Why would Labor change it? This is Labor policy 101; taking from Peter to pay Paul.

 

[sails]

McLovin - so you would also think that there should not be state schools either? Why should your taxes pay for someone else's education?

And what about those on the dole - why should your tax be spent on them?

And what about the $6 billion spend on welfare for boat arrivals who have thousands of dollars to pay smugglers?

 

[McLovin]

McLovin - so you would also think that there should not be state schools either? Why should your taxes pay for someone else's education?

And what about those on the dole - why should your tax be spent on them?

Yes, there should be state schools and the dole.

 

[IFocus]

Fiscal management by the latter years of the Howard Government was poor, but in comparison, Labor since has been shocking.

The main difference is that The Coalition prefers to hand it back to the taxpayer whereas Labor prefers to waste it directly themselves.

The latter is worse in my view.

The fundamental problem with the increases in so-called middle class welfare is that the primary reason it was doshed out was to buy swinging voters.

Efficiency in tax transfer and the longer term ramifications were a very distant second.

Yes Howard was big on buying votes wasn't he?

 

[Smurf1976]

Libs running up $260 billion in debt with a $12 billion annual interest charge? Sorry ML, but it is you that has to be kidding...lol

The Libs sold off an awful lot of public assets (as Labor has also done).

Selling assets is much the same as borrowing money from a "big picture" perspective. It's sacrificing the future either way and both major parties are guilty in a big way.

Anyone in SA like to show me where the money is now from the privatisation of ETSA? The assets are gone and the state is once again practically broke. That's the wonders of privatisation for you - anyone with a shred of intelligence would have just kept the assets in public hands, thus retaining something of actual value rather than selling, blowing the cash and ending up with nothing left.

The other states are on the same track too, I only mention SA because they're further down it than most of the rest. Victoria will be next.

 

[Smurf1976]

However, it seems to be a convenient thing for the left to bleat on about middle class welfare. If I am wrong, I am sure I will be told in no uncertain terms...

It's the social engineering aspect many despise.

Encouraging those with limited finances to have children simply to grab the cash. How common it is is an arguable point, but it happens.

A woman I worked with not that long ago was not interested in working full time for a very simple reason. To work full time meant loss of benefits, such that's she'd effectively be working twice the hours for "free". That being so, sitting at home watching TV at the taxpayers' expense is the logical choice. Another example of the problems with welfare - the amount paid is so high that it's better than a paid job in some cases.

 

[FlyingFox]

Find me a government that doesn't waste money.

They all do it. Labor spent billions on insulation and overpriced sheds, the Libs weaned middle class families on to welfare.

Different animal, same ****.

The way some people carry on about Labor you'd think the Libs were running some sort of laissez-faire economy, the reality is that they more or less were the same. I think you're kidding yourself if you think the Libs would have done much different through the last five years.

+10.

No government today thinks past the next election. No one is willing to make the non-popular or difficult decisions.

 

[drsmith]

Yes Howard was big on buying votes wasn't he?

What's that echo I hear from the 2007 election ?

Meee too ??

As I said, Labor is worse. They're trashing the shop for an extra 5-minutes behind the counter.

 

[white_goodman]

Yes Howard was big on buying votes wasn't he?

this shows your world view, the govt owns all money and chooses to give it back when it chooses... letting people keep more of their own money isnt a tax subsidy.. only economic cretins who belief in govt money multiplier BS would think so. Plundering is plundering no matter what legal form it takes..

on your second highlight I would agree however


on a side note dont think politicians buying votes is a new phenomena started in 1996..

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

 

[sails]

It's the social engineering aspect many despise.

Encouraging those with limited finances to have children simply to grab the cash. How common it is is an arguable point, but it happens.

A woman I worked with not that long ago was not interested in working full time for a very simple reason. To work full time meant loss of benefits, such that's she'd effectively be working twice the hours for "free". That being so, sitting at home watching TV at the taxpayers' expense is the logical choice. Another example of the problems with welfare - the amount paid is so high that it's better than a paid job in some cases.

Smurf, I am talking about the much complained about "middle class welfare" to those with families here, not those who can be on welfare simply by keep having children.

The middle class would pay a fair chunk of tax revenue, I would think, and so I don't see what's wrong with giving a bit back to those who need it more than those who don't have kids. These people are already paying tax so no-one else is paying them to get a bit back.