What do you want from tomorrow's budget?

trainspotter · 11 May 2010

drsmith said:
What exactly has that go to do with last year's budget ?

For fear of looking stoooooopid I posted last years budget as a "what I wanted for this years budget" ...... nothing to change in other words. No 40% tax on mining, no SGC up to 12% etc etc ... you get my drift? You then corrected me by advising that there would be increases in taxes to pay for the election bribes in this years budget. I then responded with a "Forgot about that one".

I should have been more specific in my retort. My apologies.

I would like a sensible approach to turning the budget around and back to a surplus. I think we may be getting one of these but with some pus in it to be squeezed out.

professor_frink · 11 May 2010

Sorry trainspotter, this government don't do sensible

drsmith · 11 May 2010

According to Wayne Swan;

Infrastructure fund from RRT.
Essentially a bribe for resource rich states.

50% discount to tax on the first $1000 of interest from July 2011.
Mean but it's a start.

Standard deduction of $500 from 2012 increasing to $1000 from 2013.
Why not introduce it from July 1 2010 ?
Better still, why not increase the tax free threshold instead.

No frills alright. Not much tax reform either.

trainspotter · 11 May 2010

Well it looked like my wish came true. A budget that has capped spending at 2%. Unfortunately the pus is yet to be squeezed out. Watch this space.

Calliope · 12 May 2010

The whole Budget was constructed around the Resources Super Tax and the Tobacco tax.

Turning the Budget from red to black in three years is also based on the premise that the minerals boom holds up.

Most of the spending initiatives are just promises supposed to come into effect down the track.

It's really a Clayton's budget.

c-unit · 12 May 2010

According to the age, the revenue figures assume GDP growth of 28% in the next 4 years. That is 6.4% per year

As much as Kevin wants us to be, we aren't China....

trainspotter · 12 May 2010

A grab bag of patches on patches depending on too many things IMO. Like the 40% "super profits" tax to fund promised SGC co-contributions as well as reducing company tax to 28% in 2 years time. Also linked to massive expansive growth (6.4% for 3 years as per c-unit advice) which means that the V8 industry is going to have to run REAL SMOOTHLY for a very loooong time. No China meltdown, no Euro fear, no strikes on the minesites, Unions keeping their hands in their pockets and not ours, a veritable plethora of measures are going to have to stay on a constant upward trend to fund this budget. May as well ask the sun, the moon and the stars to line up as well.

I am on bended knee that they didn't continue on their merry way of "stimulus" incentives. Notice a peak debt of 94 billion dollars as well. 3 years ago we had NUFFIN. Oh well ....... that's politics.

Calliope · 12 May 2010

trainspotter said:
No China meltdown, no Euro fear, no strikes on the minesites, Unions keeping their hands in their pockets and not ours, a veritable plethora of measures are going to have to stay on a constant upward trend to fund this budget. May as well ask the sun, the moon and the stars to line up as well.

Right...our economy is in the hands of a pair of desperate gamblers.

sammy84 · 12 May 2010

c-unit said:
According to the age, the revenue figures assume GDP growth of 28% in the next 4 years. That is 6.4% per year

As much as Kevin wants us to be, we aren't China....

I have a feeling this is a compounded figure 4 years from now.

Whiskers · 12 May 2010

sammy84 said:
I have a feeling this is a compounded figure 4 years from now.

Yes, more like a bit over 4% compounded annually.

Mofra · 12 May 2010

drsmith said:
Standard deduction of $500 from 2012 increasing to $1000 from 2013.
Why not introduce it from July 1 2010 ?
Better still, why not increase the tax free threshold instead.

I dare say the government will adjust the LITO before making major changes to the tax free threshold as it is more targeted to (*cough* marginal voters *cough*) low income earners that the overarching tax free threshold, which applies to everyone.

Calliope · 12 May 2010

Bob Brown is bleating about the budget not introducing his beloved carbon tax. He thought that if Rudd could wave a magic wand and make the deficit disappear in three years, he could wave the wand again and abolish global warming with a carbon tax.

While Rudd is a economic ignoramus, even he knows that to introduce a carbon tax at the same time as the super-profits tax would kill the coal industry. That of course is what Brown wants.

Julia · 12 May 2010

The overall broad response to the budget seems, if not excited, not at all offended.

It is, of course, predicated on the mining tax going through. The Libs have vowed to vote against it. Can someone remind me of the numbers in the Senate? Is the government plus the Greens enough to get it through if the independents (Xenophon, Fielding, Scullion) vote with the opposition?

If not, they may have to tax smokers all over again. They're a captive market, after all. How about a tax on obesity? That probably causes just as much medical complication as smoking.

son of baglimit · 12 May 2010

Calliope said:
The whole Budget was constructed around the Resources Super Tax and the Tobacco tax.

Turning the Budget from red to black in three years is also based on the premise that the minerals boom holds up.

Most of the spending initiatives are just promises supposed to come into effect down the track.

It's really a Clayton's budget.

just curious - arent budgets ALWAYS forward thinking by WHICHEVER side of politics is in charge - arent they ALWAYS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS their aims & ambitions are part of the overall prediction.

just another assumption.

Whiskers · 12 May 2010

Julia said:
The overall broad response to the budget seems, if not excited, not at all offended.

Yeah, that's the impression I get too.

A good looking budget on paper to please the economists it would appear, but, it all hinges on getting it through the senate.

It is, of course, predicated on the mining tax going through. The Libs have vowed to vote against it. Can someone remind me of the numbers in the Senate? Is the government plus the Greens enough to get it through if the independents (Xenophon, Fielding, Scullion) vote with the opposition?

I think they will need the Greens and one of the the other three to get a majority.

Lab: 32
Green:5
Lib:31
Nat:4
and, Xenophon, Fielding, Scullion

The question is which one are they going to target.

Whiskers · 12 May 2010

Calliope said:
Bob Brown is bleating about the budget not introducing his beloved carbon tax.

I sense something strategic about Rudd shelving the ETS untill 2013.

Thats another full term after this election assuming he wins another term.

Could he whisper into Browns ear, mate we'll leave the ETS off the adgenda for now and we might get another seat or two in the senate in the meantime... you help me get this budget through and I'll bring back the ETS when we are in a stronger position.

That's politics!

c-unit · 13 May 2010

Whiskers said:
Yes, more like a bit over 4% compounded annually.

Sorry? 28% GDP growth over four years is 6.4% per year (when you consider compounding)

Ie 1.28^(1/4) - 1 ~ 6.4%.

Perhaps I read the 28% GDP growth over 4 years figure incorrectly, but if that is what they are saying, then they are assuming 6.4% growth annually.

GumbyLearner · 13 May 2010

c-unit said:
Sorry? 28% GDP growth over four years is 6.4% per year (when you consider compounding)

Ie 1.28^(1/4) - 1 ~ 6.4%.

Perhaps I read the 28% GDP growth over 4 years figure incorrectly, but if that is what they are saying, then they are assuming 6.4% growth annually.

Guinness Book of World Records Size Egg on the Face if China and India put the brakes on.

Where's the $25,000 income tax free threshold for battlers? Total and absolute controlling cowards. IMHO

Hey ALP. Get your hands out of the pocket of the poor. They have enough trouble reaching into their own pay-packets to pay their bills. Hands Off!!!

GO THE BATTLERS!!!!!

Calliope · 13 May 2010

The Labor jackal pack has turned all it's venom on Abbott in a desperate effort to discredit him before his response to the Budget tonight They are running scared.

gav · 13 May 2010

Costello's reaction:

"For the record, government spending will exceed revenue in the next financial year - a deficit of $40 billion - which will be financed by new debt. In dollar terms, it is the second-highest deficit on record, and in percentage terms about the level we had in the recession of 1983 and the recession of 1992. Except we're not in recession. We are in the middle of the greatest mining boom since the gold rush."

Full article here:
Swan's balancing act won't add up
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/swans-balancing-act-wont-add-up-20100512-uxyv.html

What do you want from tomorrow's budget?

trainspotter

professor_frink

Moderator

drsmith

trainspotter

Calliope

c-unit

trainspotter

Calliope

Attachments

sammy84

Whiskers

It's a small world

Mofra

Calliope

Julia

In Memoriam

son of baglimit

Whiskers

It's a small world

Whiskers

It's a small world

c-unit

GumbyLearner

Calliope

gav

Similar threads

What do you want from tomorrow's budget?

Moderator

Attachments

It's a small world

In Memoriam

It's a small world

It's a small world

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency