Useless Labor Party

[sptrawler]

I must admit I find it strange how Wayne Swan was responsible for the falling commodity prices, yet the other day Hockey spoke out on TV stating no govt can control the price of commodities as he tried to explain the huge blackhole the present govt has inflicted on our fair nation.

Similarly I find it odd that Labor created a mess, but Liberal are creating order while replicating the same ill considered tactics to tackle an economy in reverse. Reminds me of George Bush ignoring income in favour of spend, which ultimately resulted in the global meltdown that Labor created.

I must admit I find it strange, that the media say, resources boom lasted 10 years.
Then they say, Howard and Costello blew it? when Labor were in office for 6 of those 10 years.

Just because Abbott and Hockey, didn't get budget cuts through, doesn't mean we don't need the cuts.

Even Michael Pascoe,wrote an article highlighting the fact, the pension is going up faster than the average wage.

Might be great if your a pensioner, not so great if you pay tax, or save to pay your own way.

Won't be long before those who own their home, on an indexed government pension, are far better off than those who self fund.IMO
That is of course, unless you were fortunate enough, to obtain a public service pension.

 

[sydboy007]

Here is the fundamental difference on how three countries handled the GFC.

As I have stated before, I am certain Howard and Costello would have done twice as much with half the money Labor wasted.

Similarly, fiscal responsibility was demonstrated by the UK and Germany as the link has pointed out.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ments/cameron_vs_rudd_a_battle_over_stimulus/

Considering the IMF has 2 of the most profligate periods of Federal Govt spending under the Howard and Costello leadership, it's quite possible they'd have spent far more than Labor. maybe doubled the baby bonus perhaps?

Do you remember that the 6-9 months proceeding the big hit from the GFC that the mining sector were retrenching staff so fast? Spending was going down.

If labors spending was so bad, then you also have to castigate Howard and Costello for the reduction in the tapering rate to allow millionaire part pensioners? If it was such a good policy, costing $1B a year, why is the Abbott Govt reversing the policy?

The fact is that much of the structural harm to the budget was done by Howard and Costello. Much easier to hide 'spending" when it's a tax expenditure, but a billion dollar tax expenditure has as much impact to the bottom line as a billion in spending. though I'd argue that in many ways tax expenditures are far more distorting to the economy.

So if Abbott and Hockey are serious about reducing the budget deficit, then they have to do what Labor did, in 2 of their last 3 years in office, and keep real spending growth negative. No Liberal Govt has ever achieved this. Labor has 5 times.

The current Govt also has to start fixing a lot of the damage that 7 years of tax cuts has done to revenue, along with so much of the wasteful spending. If we're facing financial disaster how is spending $250M on school chaplains helping? The current massive deficit is as much a revenue as a spending problem.

 

[noco]

Considering the IMF has 2 of the most profligate periods of Federal Govt spending under the Howard and Costello leadership, it's quite possible they'd have spent far more than Labor. maybe doubled the baby bonus perhaps?

Do you remember that the 6-9 months proceeding the big hit from the GFC that the mining sector were retrenching staff so fast? Spending was going down.

If labors spending was so bad, then you also have to castigate Howard and Costello for the reduction in the tapering rate to allow millionaire part pensioners? If it was such a good policy, costing $1B a year, why is the Abbott Govt reversing the policy?

The fact is that much of the structural harm to the budget was done by Howard and Costello. Much easier to hide 'spending" when it's a tax expenditure, but a billion dollar tax expenditure has as much impact to the bottom line as a billion in spending. though I'd argue that in many ways tax expenditures are far more distorting to the economy.

So if Abbott and Hockey are serious about reducing the budget deficit, then they have to do what Labor did, in 2 of their last 3 years in office, and keep real spending growth negative. No Liberal Govt has ever achieved this. Labor has 5 times.

The current Govt also has to start fixing a lot of the damage that 7 years of tax cuts has done to revenue, along with so much of the wasteful spending. If we're facing financial disaster how is spending $250M on school chaplains helping? The current massive deficit is as much a revenue as a spending problem.

Do you remember, Howard and Costello left Labor $22 billion in the bank and no debt.....unemployment at 4%.

How in the hell could you possibly blame Howard and Costello for the mess Labor left behind.

My gawd, your memory has failed YOU so badly.

 

[Tisme]

Do you remember, Howard and Costello left Labor $22 billion in the bank and no debt.....unemployment at 4%.

.

That's not true. Cash at bank might have been there, but it was borrowed money. Taking in those borrowings, the net debt was quite large, but obscurated in a 'roses in the attic' account. The Finance Dept website has the archive balance sheets showing the actual position at the time (well it used to ).

The wizard management of paying down debt was to sell $70+bn of our own assets; much of it to ourselves (double mortgaging effectively that shuffled debt). 40% of the debt that was paid down, was carryover from the Fraser years (Howard treasurer).... ouch that's gotta hurt the true believers.

 

[noco]

That's not true. Cash at bank might have been there, but it was borrowed money. Taking in those borrowings, the net debt was quite large, but obscurated in a 'roses in the attic' account. The Finance Dept website has the archive balance sheets showing the actual position at the time (well it used to ).

The wizard management of paying down debt was to sell $70+bn of our own assets; much of it to ourselves (double mortgaging effectively that shuffled debt). 40% of the debt that was paid down, was carryover from the Fraser years (Howard treasurer).... ouch that's gotta hurt the true believers.

And you have a link to back up your statement.

 

[trainspotter]

That's not true. Cash at bank might have been there, but it was borrowed money. Taking in those borrowings, the net debt was quite large, but obscurated in a 'roses in the attic' account. The Finance Dept website has the archive balance sheets showing the actual position at the time (well it used to ).

The wizard management of paying down debt was to sell $70+bn of our own assets; much of it to ourselves (double mortgaging effectively that shuffled debt). 40% of the debt that was paid down, was carryover from the Fraser years (Howard treasurer).... ouch that's gotta hurt the true believers.

Errrmmmm I know you are fishing but the bait is a bit smelly.

ECONOMIST and former economic adviser to the Prime Minister Stephen Koukoulas - known as The Kouk - has reached the end of his tether.

"I'm sick of the misinformation campaign being run by the Liberal Party and sections of the media about the Australian economy. The fact is Australia's net debt is dramatically lower than the net debt levels for every single major advanced economy."

He points out that Australia's current net debt is in the order of 10 per cent, which compares favourably with the US (80 per cent) and Canada (35 per cent). Government net debt is well over 100 per cent of gross domestic product in both Japan and Greece.

This is shown in The Kouk's chart of government net debt in a number of countries.

But in his open letter - "join the thousands of people taking a stand against misinformation" - he does fail to mention one important fact. When the Labor government came to office in 2007, there was no debt at all. Rather, government net debt was minus $45 billion, which was nearly 4 per cent of GDP.

Australia went from 4 per cent of GDP in the black to 10 per cent in the red in the space of four years under Labor rule. Now that is a record by historical standards.

Oooopsies at the train station.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ne-crucial-point/story-fnbkvnk7-1226613585777

P.S. No such word as obscurated. It is obscured or obscuration

What the hell??? The ABC facts check can't be wrong now can it??

Of the total Commonwealth securities on issue, that $19.7 billion increase on the Coalition's watch represents 6 per cent. Mr Hockey can argue that most of the remainder is Labor's legacy. However, when Labor took office in 2007, it inherited $59 billion in Commonwealth securities from the Howard government.

This means of the current securities on issue of $329 billion, Labor budgetary measures are responsible for $246 billion, or 75 per cent.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/joe-hockey-one-billion-a-month-interest-fact-check/5478480

 

[sydboy007]

And you have a link to back up your statement.

http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2095-more-facts-behind-the-howard-governments-debt-elimination

The $96 billion “Labor debt” inherited by the Howard Government in 1996 comprised $39.9 billion of Fraser Government debt that carried through the Hawke/Keating period meaning that the true level of Labor debt in 1996 was $56 billion. To pay that $56 billion off, the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets meaning the move to negative net debt was not really due to any miraculous and bold fiscal settings, but owed everything to a series of asset sales.

 

[sydboy007]

I must admit I find it strange, that the media say, resources boom lasted 10 years.
Then they say, Howard and Costello blew it? when Labor were in office for 6 of those 10 years.

Just because Abbott and Hockey, didn't get budget cuts through, doesn't mean we don't need the cuts.

Even Michael Pascoe,wrote an article highlighting the fact, the pension is going up faster than the average wage.

Might be great if your a pensioner, not so great if you pay tax, or save to pay your own way.

Won't be long before those who own their home, on an indexed government pension, are far better off than those who self fund.IMO
That is of course, unless you were fortunate enough, to obtain a public service pension.

have a read of the below

It helps to explain how Howard resided over the most profitable - in taxation terms - of the boom

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/05/howard-also-to-blame-for-budgets-ills/

Nominal GDP is the dollar value of what’s produced and earned across the economy and is also the measure that drives federal taxation revenue. Due in part to the inexorable rise in the terms-of-trade, the Howard Government experienced ever growing nominal GDP growth as commodity prices surged, whereby it reaped the benefits of growing personal and company taxes, not to mention increased capital gains taxes as asset markets boomed. By comparison, the Rudd/Gillard Governments experienced two episodes where nominal GDP collapsed – both on account of falling commodity prices.

Howard also had the benefit of household debt doubling during his term, while Labor saw private debt fall slightly. Unless you can import a lot of demand it's not possible for both the private and public sectors to both increase savings.

 

[trainspotter]

http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2095-more-facts-behind-the-howard-governments-debt-elimination

Irrespective. 75% of the debt we have is from Labor. FACT. No excuses. No weasel words. FACT.

Howard sold assets, no one is denying that. To go from 45 billion in the black to 247 billion in the red is a record of monumental gross stupidity of a fiscal kind. All this inside 4 years. YEP ... well done RUDD/GILLARD/RUDD and the useless Labor Party.

 

[Tisme]

And you have a link to back up your statement.

I'm not a wet nurse Noco. You are just as able as the next person to fish around the finance dept's site for the annual reports. I would have thought you would be the first person to check out what the true situation was.

 

[noco]

I'm not a wet nurse Noco. You are just as able as the next person to fish around the finance dept's site for the annual reports. I would have thought you would be the first person to check out what the true situation was.

Anyone who makes silly statements on ASF generally don't have a back up...If.you make a statement, it is up to you to back it up.

 

[sptrawler]

have a read of the below

It helps to explain how Howard resided over the most profitable - in taxation terms - of the boom

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/05/howard-also-to-blame-for-budgets-ills/

View attachment 62542



Howard also had the benefit of household debt doubling during his term, while Labor saw private debt fall slightly. Unless you can import a lot of demand it's not possible for both the private and public sectors to both increase savings.

View attachment 62543

So with some reasoning, you are saying the Labor Government, over 6 years managed the falling tax base and TOT well?

They actually did very little to change the tax base.
Negative gearing, Superannuation, middle class welfare, general welfare payments were a problem when they were in office.
The Henry report gave many suggested changes, what did they do?

Well they passed the Greens agenda, the carbon tax, which added another nail to a struggling manufacturing sector.

They introduced the resource rent tax on super profits of miners, two years later, most are belly up.

So maybe you can tell me, what long term tax reform was introduced to stem the loss of tax reciepts?

Absolutely none.

 

[Smurf1976]

Irrespective. 75% of the debt we have is from Labor. FACT. No excuses. No weasel words. FACT.

Howard sold assets

Selling assets and incurring debt is substantially the same thing in terms of the overall outcome.

How much assets did Howard sell? What income would they be producing today?

I don't know the answer to that question, but it's impossible to fairly compare Labor versus Liberal without such information.

 

[sptrawler]

Selling assets and incurring debt is substantially the same thing in terms of the overall outcome.

How much assets did Howard sell? What income would they be producing today?

I don't know the answer to that question, but it's impossible to fairly compare Labor versus Liberal without such information.

It is impossible to compare the value of an asset, and the value of keeping that asset.

It is all relative, to how much you need the money, to fund something else, as opposed to the future value or income.

If it was easy to just keep assets, non of us would sell our houses, or blue chip shares.

However to think you can just keep racking up debt, because you don't want to sell assets, doesn't seem to go down well either.

That is unless you just keep racking up debt, until your thrown out of office.

Then criticise the others, who pick up the debt, and have to sort it out.

It's a bit like Telstra, the Government sold it and the share price still isn't back to the sell price.

If I sold shares 10 years ago, for $7.40 to pay off the house and they were $6 today, I would be wrapped.
Who gives a rats about the lost dividend, the interest savings on the house loan would cover that.
Also I'm still up 20% on my sell price.

It isn't simple.

You've also have to factor in the savings from not running the company, but taxing the wages and profits anyway.

 

[Tisme]

Anyone who makes silly statements on ASF generally don't have a back up...If.you make a statement, it is up to you to back it up.

Yes well you are your own worst critic then, aren't you.

 

[Tisme]

Selling assets and incurring debt is substantially the same thing in terms of the overall outcome.

How much assets did Howard sell? What income would they be producing today?

I don't know the answer to that question, but it's impossible to fairly compare Labor versus Liberal without such information.

Especially income producing asset. Of course Telstra was in its dying stages when sold off, so the Libs bolstered it (and shareholder dividend) by giving it monopoly status and continues to do so at the expense of consumers, the NBN and competition.

 

[Tisme]

It is impossible to compare the value of an asset, and the value of keeping that asset.

.

Howard, subsequent LNP regimes and even some Lab govts would argue otherwise.

 

[sydboy007]

So with some reasoning, you are saying the Labor Government, over 6 years managed the falling tax base and TOT well?

They actually did very little to change the tax base.
Negative gearing, Superannuation, middle class welfare, general welfare payments were a problem when they were in office.
The Henry report gave many suggested changes, what did they do?

Well they passed the Greens agenda, the carbon tax, which added another nail to a struggling manufacturing sector.

They introduced the resource rent tax on super profits of miners, two years later, most are belly up.

So maybe you can tell me, what long term tax reform was introduced to stem the loss of tax reciepts?

Absolutely none.

The complaints you make about Labor in opposition currently stand for how the LNP behaved when Labor was in Govt, or are you arguing that Abbott was all about constructive opposition?

Tax reform is very hard to achieve when the opposition is a friend to everyone "losing" out to reform.

Have you forgot how Abbott behaved when Gillard wanted to make sensible reforms to car FBT? Surely it's sensible policy to only allow people to claim car expenses used for work purposes, rather than the system Abbott brought back that allows all expenses to be claimed?

I'm not denying that Labor were at times not as focused as they should have been, but they don't hold all the blame for where we are. The budget rot was started by Howard and Costello, the halving of CGT directly lead to the housing boom and near doubling of household debt. Rudd should never have agreed to the last lot of tax cuts during the 07 election. Those $$$ would certainly come in handy for the budget now. But then Howard was madly cutting taxes and increasing spending at a time when the RBA was rising interest rates. If Howard had behaved more responsibly and help the RBA to limit the interest rate rises, how many tens of billions would the private sector have saved? Is it fair to ignore that very real expense to the economy?

If Labor had been lucky enough to have had the same revenue coming in as Howard they'd have run the same kind of surpluses. They kept spending lower than Howards and in their final years were actually keeping real spending growth pretty much in negative terms. Howards spending growth made the Fraser years look controlled.

The Abbott Govt is facing exactly the same crappy set of circumstances as Labor, and I find it so exquisitely funny when Costello gives the current Govt a serve via his newspaper blogs when he's unwilling to acknowledge the different circumstances we find ourselves in.

How could Labor have made changes to super taxes when Abbott had promised no changes while in opposition? Abbott even backtracked on adding a 15% tax on around 16000 super pensioners earning over 100K a year. Seriously, he's sticking up for people who'd be in the top 5% of income earners, while at the same time kicking the poorest millions who get no benefit from super as the LISC is canned. Do you honestly think Labor could have constructively worked with Abbott, the guy who lied in parliament about a pensioner's electricity bill doubling due to the carbon tax, to have come up with meaningful reform?

 

[trainspotter]

Selling assets and incurring debt is substantially the same thing in terms of the overall outcome.

How much assets did Howard sell? What income would they be producing today?

I don't know the answer to that question, but it's impossible to fairly compare Labor versus Liberal without such information.

How is selling an asset and incurring debt the same thing? I believe the Howard Government sold almost $72 billion of Government assets to pay off a debt of 96 billion. By June 2007, Australia had net financial assets (negative debt) of $29 billion. So 24 billion (paid off debt) + 29 billion (negative debt) = 53 billion in the black. Compared to Labor 247 billion in the RED when they got dethroned. A tidy sum of 300 billion spent in 4 years. Does this not seem illogical in a fiscal sense to you at all?

Here is the internet address of the sale of the assets if you are truly interested in prolonging this debate:- http://www.finance.gov.au/property/asset-sales/past-sales.html

 

[trainspotter]

If Labor had been lucky enough to have had the same revenue coming in as Howard they'd have run the same kind of surpluses. They kept spending lower than Howards and in their final years were actually keeping real spending growth pretty much in negative terms. Howards spending growth made the Fraser years look controlled.

The Abbott Govt is facing exactly the same crappy set of circumstances as Labor, and I find it so exquisitely funny when Costello gives the current Govt a serve via his newspaper blogs when he's unwilling to acknowledge the different circumstances we find ourselves in.

Oh really?

THE era of Kevin, interrupted by the Julia interlude, has been a roller-coaster ride. Having promised Howard-lite and fiscal conservatism, the excuse of the global financial crisis unleashed a period of rapid growth in government spending, successive budget deficits and mounting public debt under Kevin Rudd's guidance.

Now, with Rudd's return, Labor has launched a charm offensive that seeks to whitewash the past: it is as if aliens from Mars, fortunately departed, had been in charge. But the damage of that era cannot be wiped out so easily.

And that damage is steep indeed: 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.

The time has come to count those costs, and to assess their implications for the man who would be king.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ste-and-spending/story-fn59niix-1226690463570

And what about this then?

Across all the years since the last recession, the expenditure to GDP average has been 24.75. The average across the Howard years was 24.15, and over the Rudd/Gillard years it averaged 25.15.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/25/economy/truth-behind-hockeys-magic-number

Yep you are right about the income stream that Howard/Costello had that the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Party did not. That is a given. So good governance would have dictated that they should have spent LESS rather than on school halls, $900 x 3 to everybody with kids, Pink Batts ad infinitum. Here is a link to a very interesting book about what the money was actually spent on.

http://lpa.webcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/Web assets/The Little Book of Big Labor Waste.pdf

So if the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Party saved us from the GFC with all this spending imagine how good it would be if we did not have this debt right now?

TREASURY has been forced to withdraw a budget graph that overstated the effects on growth of fiscal stimulus spending across the G20 after a senior academic raised questions about its accuracy.

The original Treasury graph on stimulus spending, published in Budget Paper 1, used only 11 of 19 G20 countries and backed claims that the greater the level of stimulus spending, the greater the boost to growth above International Monetary Fund predictions. But yesterday the Institute of Public Affairs, of which Professor Davidson is a member, was also taking issue with the OECD comparison. The IPA said Treasury had omitted Greece, Hungary, Iceland and Ireland, which cut spending last year.

When they were included, the slope on the graph again went back to being statistically insignificant.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...xaggerated-graph/story-e6frg6nf-1225875251275

Have a look at this baby GOOOOOOOOOOOO http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/

Now imagine if it was in reverse and we were obtaining INTEREST on the money we had in the bank??