http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/02/repealing-a-tax-will-save-4b-er-no-tony-abbott/


Quote:

Don’t look now, but there’s another hole in the Coalition’s numbers. But don’t worry, it’s only $4 billion. “Finding savings is a big task but we’re up for it and will release all our costings in good time for the next election,” Tony Abbott declared at the Press Club on Tuesday. He went on to say:     “Not proceeding with the carbon tax would deliver $31 billion in savings over the forward estimates period with a net improvement of $4 billion in the budget bottom line.” The $31 billion figure, of course, is what will be spent by way of free permits and compensation under the scheme; Abbott failed to note that not proceeding with the carbon tax would also lose about $27 billion in revenue, but no matter. But his numbers are now wrong. The net cost of $4 billion was revised back to $3.3 billion in MYEFO, which adjusted the costs of household compensation and, crucially, shifted even more expenditure associated with the package into this financial year as part of Wayne Swan’s pea-and-thimble trick to shore up next year’s surplus. As a result, there’s a net $3.3 billion in savings only from the carbon pricing package over the forward estimates, not $4 billion. And $3.1 billion of that is being spent this year. So Abbott’s $4 billion in savings is actually $3.3 billion and only available if somehow he gets into office before June 30 and halts compensation payments. In fact even if the Coalition wins an election held in the second half of 2013, it won’t be able to save a single cent, because the net spending associated with the carbon pricing package will have been completed by the time the Coalition could repeal it — assuming they could do so without a double dissolution election, before July 2014. And that’s actually the point where the carbon pricing package starts returning money to the budget, rather than costing money. The funny thing is, Abbott continues to call the carbon pricing package a tax but in the same sentence says that repealing it would save the government money — unlike any other tax in history. Of course, if he’d picked up the excellent point made by South Australian senator Simon Birmingham about why the government continues to refuse to reveal the fiscal implications of the package beyond the forward estimates, when it did the same for the CPRS out to 2020, he’d have been on much safer ground.

I need not say a word.

Quote:

The funny thing is, Abbott continues to call the carbon pricing package a tax but in the same sentence says that repealing it would save the government money — unlike any other tax in history.

Crikey -> like any Leftist commentator fails to understand cause and effect.  Revenues lost from driving business off shore will far outshine $4 Billion

This from a government that predicted a 1.5% surplus every year in the budget since 2007 and have never achieved it?

This is from a government that seems to underestimate their own costs and over-inflate the Coalition's costs - and they are wrong on both accounts

You are worried about a fairy tale $4B blackhole but have little to nothing to say about the $30B cost blow out of the NBN, wastage BER of $16B, $42B stimulus that did nothing, close to $250B in debt and Pink Batts of $2.7B not to mention "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

Not a squeak over the above but you are salivating over this $4B figure?

We are now $137 Billion in the red thanks to Labor.
Factor in the $22 Billion surplus Howard left behind then makes it $159 Billion Labor has piddled away on crap.
Abbott can fart $4 Billion.
Who cares.

Please. Quote leftard crikey. Stuff that.

The article has zero merit.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 1:08pm:

We are now $137 Billion in the red thanks to Labor.

Does the term "GFC stimulus" ring a bell ?

You want to talk GFC debt - talk UK and USA

The DIFFERENCE with Australia's situation is that it WORKED - due to RAPID ACTION

It is around the LOWEST debt - in relation to GDP

Australia was the ONLY OECD member NEVER to have gone into recession

It gave the LOWEST rate of unemployment in the developed world

( ... around HALF that of the UK and US - and around a quarter of the "basket case" that is the EU)

Australia's economy is the ENVY of the world

Show us a similar model of economy that is in better shape than Australia's



( ... and forget the old mining boom "furphy" - which accounts for less than 5% of GDP)

$4 billion black hole in Abbott's "aspirations"

There were very good reasons why Howard and Costello wouldn't let Abbott anywhere near the economy.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 1:56pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 1:08pm: We are now $137 Billion in the red thanks to Labor. [size=14] Does the term "GFC stimulus" ring a bell ?

Yes it does.

It is a large future income tax increase.

Labor borrow so that they don't have to increase taxes to fund their pork barrelling policies.

All Labor Governments in States and Territories and Federally do this.  They spend at every opportunity until things are ultimately stuffed. :(

Swagman wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 2:02pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 1:56pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 1:08pm: We are now $137 Billion in the red thanks to Labor. [size=14] Does the term "GFC stimulus" ring a bell ? Yes it does. [b]It is a large future income tax increase. Labor borrow so that they don't have to increase taxes to fund their pork barrelling policies. All Labor Governments in States and Territories and Federally do this.  They spend at every opportunity until things are ultimately stuffed. :(

No they leave it up to liberals to fix and we the people to pay for.

Less than 5% hey?

Best you tell dfat they have it wrong and their figure is a furphy.

www.dfat.gov.au/facts/resources_sector.html
Block all www.dfat.gov.au results
During that period, the minerals and petroleum industries produced over eight per cent of Australia's GDP


Yes I know they are 2007 figures but it remains around the same.

blackadder wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Less than 5% hey? Best you tell dfat they have it wrong and their figure is a furphy. www.dfat.gov.au/facts/resources_sector.html Block all www.dfat.gov.au results During that period, the minerals and petroleum industries produced over eight per cent of Australia's GDP

Yes

Less than 5%

Petroleum has been a long term CONSTANT ( ... which I didn't mention)

The current MINERAL boom accounts for less than 5%

www.isf.uts.edu.au/.../giurcoetal2010peakmineralsreview.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Civil Engineering (Monash University), March 2010. ..... Mining represented approximately 7.7% of Australia's GDP in 2008-09 and combined mineral and ...

blackadder wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 2:19pm:

www.isf.uts.edu.au/.../giurcoetal2010peakmineralsreview.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Civil Engineering (Monash University), March 2010. ..... Mining represented approximately 7.7% of Australia's GDP in 2008-09 and combined mineral and ...

As a distraction you COULD quibble over 1 or 2% fluctuations till "daisy" comes home ...

What you CAN'T do is deny economic reality






buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 1:56pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 1:08pm: We are now $137 Billion in the red thanks to Labor. Does the term "GFC stimulus" ring a bell ? You want to talk GFC debt - talk UK and USA The DIFFERENCE with Australia's situation is that it WORKED - due to RAPID ACTION It is around the LOWEST debt - in relation to GDP Australia was the ONLY OECD member NEVER to have gone into recession It gave the LOWEST rate of unemployment in the developed world ( ... around HALF that of the UK and US - and around a quarter of the "basket case" that is the EU) Australia's economy is the ENVY of the world Show us a similar model of economy that is in better shape than Australia's

Send your thank you cards to -

Chairman of the People's Council
Beijing
People's Republic of China.

Australia - One big quarry open for business.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 2:33pm:

Show us a similar model of economy that is in better shape than Australia's

Norway

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 2:39pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 2:33pm: Show us a similar model of economy that is in better shape than Australia's Norway

Don't they have a resource tax imposed on business?
Aren't they one of the highest taxing nations on earth?
How is it possible their economy even functions, surely business is clamoring to move out?
How is it possible that a high tax nation has a better economy than a moderate(Aus) or low(USA)tax one Andrei?

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 12:17pm:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/02/repealing-a-tax-will-save-4b-er-no-tony-abbott/ Quote: Don’t look now, but there’s another hole in the Coalition’s numbers. But don’t worry, it’s only $4 billion. “Finding savings is a big task but we’re up for it and will release all our costings in good time for the next election,” Tony Abbott declared at the Press Club on Tuesday. He went on to say:     “Not proceeding with the carbon tax would deliver $31 billion in savings over the forward estimates period with a net improvement of $4 billion in the budget bottom line.” The $31 billion figure, of course, is what will be spent by way of free permits and compensation under the scheme; Abbott failed to note that not proceeding with the carbon tax would also lose about $27 billion in revenue, but no matter. But his numbers are now wrong. The net cost of $4 billion was revised back to $3.3 billion in MYEFO, which adjusted the costs of household compensation and, crucially, shifted even more expenditure associated with the package into this financial year as part of Wayne Swan’s pea-and-thimble trick to shore up next year’s surplus. As a result, there’s a net $3.3 billion in savings only from the carbon pricing package over the forward estimates, not $4 billion. And $3.1 billion of that is being spent this year. So Abbott’s $4 billion in savings is actually $3.3 billion and only available if somehow he gets into office before June 30 and halts compensation payments. In fact even if the Coalition wins an election held in the second half of 2013, it won’t be able to save a single cent, because the net spending associated with the carbon pricing package will have been completed by the time the Coalition could repeal it — assuming they could do so without a double dissolution election, before July 2014. And that’s actually the point where the carbon pricing package starts returning money to the budget, rather than costing money. The funny thing is, Abbott continues to call the carbon pricing package a tax but in the same sentence says that repealing it would save the government money — unlike any other tax in history. Of course, if he’d picked up the excellent point made by South Australian senator Simon Birmingham about why the government continues to refuse to reveal the fiscal implications of the package beyond the forward estimates, when it did the same for the CPRS out to 2020, he’d have been on much safer ground. I need not say a word.

Nice deception by the author.  Its not a $4 billion dollar black hole at all. The actual difference is which figures you use, the $4 billion or the $3.3 billion.

Nice work to make a $700 million discrepancy look and sound like $4 billion.

This is just as pathetic as the people they claim to not be like.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 2:39pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 2:33pm: Show us a similar model of economy that is in better shape than Australia's Norway

LOL !

Any MORE ?

The once "GREAT" Britain ?
The once "MIGHTY" US of A ?
ANY of the EU ?

How did THEY fail, so dismally - where Australia TRIUMPHED ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 3:15pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 2:39pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 2:33pm: Show us a similar model of economy that is in better shape than Australia's Norway LOL ! Any MORE ? The once "GREAT" Britain ? The once "MIGHTY" US of A ? ANY of the EU ? How did THEY fail, so dismally - where Australia TRIUMPHED ?

They didn't have the forsight to go against their lefties and get their finances in order. They didn't have Australia's liberal party.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 4:17pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 3:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 2:39pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 2:33pm: Show us a similar model of economy that is in better shape than Australia's Norway LOL ! Any MORE ? The once "GREAT" Britain ? The once "MIGHTY" US of A ? ANY of the EU ? How did THEY fail, so dismally - where Australia TRIUMPHED ? They didn't have the forsight to go against their lefties and get their finances in order. They didn't have Australia's liberal party.

Such pride in criminal economic and political corruption in the political class...Lies - its all lies. http://phumphries.com/forums/images/smilies/marlboro-man.gif

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 4:17pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 3:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 2:39pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 2:33pm: Show us a similar model of economy that is in better shape than Australia's Norway LOL ! Any MORE ? The once "GREAT" Britain ? The once "MIGHTY" US of A ? ANY of the EU ? How did THEY fail, so dismally - where Australia TRIUMPHED ? They didn't have the forsight to go against their lefties and get their finances in order. They didn't have Australia's liberal party.

The Liberals were in OPPOSITION, you NONG !
Check your HISTORY books

I heard where gillard was praising our economy and comparing us to the oil rich countries... the Arabs.. lovely comparison..

she didnt mention that our economy is exactly the same....

dependent on selling something that comes out of the ground.

and according to her is stuffing up the ozone layer so we in the end need to stop using it... and of course educate the rest of the world to stop using it..

so we TAX the hell out of it first.. in our rush to make a dollar before reality hits..

reality that is..

either industry is not the cause of GW....

or oh god it really is..

so we have to stop using what comes out of the ground and is keeping out economy growing.. RIGHT NOW and not in the year 2050..

a bit of a conundrum I am thinking.

Verge wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 3:08pm:

Nice deception by the author.  Its not a $4 billion dollar black hole at all. The actual difference is which figures you use, the $4 billion or the $3.3 billion. Nice work to make a $700 million discrepancy look and sound like $4 billion.This is just as pathetic as the people they claim to not be like.

I will try to explain it to you.

Mr Abbott has quoted a $4B saving.

The amount is actually 3.3

So as you say its a $700 million discrepancy up front.

What you seem to have missed is that $3.1 B will be spent before Mr Abbott could save it.

This leaves a total saving of $200M and not $4B.

The discrepancy is $3.8B

Abbott and the puffin doughnut man Hockey would not get their policies audited before the last election and came up 11 billion dollars short.....Puffin doughnut man Hockey has said he will not put the Coalitions policies up for scrutiny again before the next election and will instead have them independently audited by someone unknown at this stage....With $70 billion in cuts to the budget can we afford to take their word for it when they are so dodgy on their figure???

;)

http://www.smh.com.au/national/hockey-refuses-to-hand-over-cost-of-election-policies-to-parliamentary-budget-office-20110921-1klbi.html

Swagman wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 1:03pm:

Quote: The funny thing is, Abbott continues to call the carbon pricing package a tax but in the same sentence says that repealing it would save the government money — unlike any other tax in history. Crikey -> like any Leftist commentator fails to understand cause and effect.  Revenues lost from driving business off shore will far outshine $4 Billion

wHAT ABOUT REVENUES LOST FROM NOT MODERNISING YOUR ECONOMY VIA TAX REFORM?

::)

wHAT ABOUT REVENUES LOST FROM NOT MODERNISING YOUR ECONOMY VIA TAX REFORM?

::) ::) :-?

wHAT ABOUT REVENUES LOST FROM NOT MODERNISING YOUR ECONOMY VIA TAX REFORM?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  ;)  :-*

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 8:56pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 1:03pm: Quote: The funny thing is, Abbott continues to call the carbon pricing package a tax but in the same sentence says that repealing it would save the government money — unlike any other tax in history. Crikey -> like any Leftist commentator fails to understand cause and effect.  Revenues lost from driving business off shore will far outshine $4 Billion wHAT ABOUT REVENUES LOST FROM NOT MODERNISING YOUR ECONOMY VIA TAX REFORM? ::) wHAT ABOUT REVENUES LOST FROM NOT MODERNISING YOUR ECONOMY VIA TAX REFORM? ::) ::) :-? wHAT ABOUT REVENUES LOST FROM NOT MODERNISING YOUR ECONOMY VIA TAX REFORM? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  ;)  :-*

Ask the Grim Reaper http://sportstwo.com/images/smilies/characters/smiley-grim.gif

Ask the Grim Reaper http://sportstwo.com/images/smilies/characters/smiley-grim.gif

Ask the Grim Reaper http://sportstwo.com/images/smilies/characters/smiley-grim.gif

:D :D :D :D

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2012 at 1:56pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 1:08pm: We are now $137 Billion in the red thanks to Labor. Does the term "GFC stimulus" ring a bell ? You want to talk GFC debt - talk UK and USA The DIFFERENCE with Australia's situation is that it WORKED - due to RAPID ACTION It is around the LOWEST debt - in relation to GDP Australia was the ONLY OECD member NEVER to have gone into recession It gave the LOWEST rate of unemployment in the developed world ( ... around HALF that of the UK and US - and around a quarter of the "basket case" that is the EU) Australia's economy is the ENVY of the world Show us a similar model of economy that is in better shape than Australia's ( ... and forget the old mining boom "furphy" - which accounts for less than 5% of GDP)

Oh, the GFC stimulus.
Yes, I've heard that one.
Personally speaking, better roads, health care, education, investing in Aged Care, mental health, homeless and a dozen other causes would have been just as effective to use as an economic stimulant.
All the Builders Early Retirement (BER) did was waste money on overpriced halls and unusable tiny tuckshops, and the Governments total lack of consultation with the states Education departments saw a golden opportunity wasted.
Labors answer to the GFC was akin to them building 30 meter high gold plated dildo's on both sides of the highway leading to NSW every hundred meters.
Any fool can spend money buzz, spending it wisely needs someone else.
And Labor are very very foolish.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2012 at 7:29am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 1:56pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 2nd, 2012 at 1:08pm: We are now $137 Billion in the red thanks to Labor. Does the term "GFC stimulus" ring a bell ? You want to talk GFC debt - talk UK and USA The DIFFERENCE with Australia's situation is that it WORKED - due to RAPID ACTION It is around the LOWEST debt - in relation to GDP Australia was the ONLY OECD member NEVER to have gone into recession It gave the LOWEST rate of unemployment in the developed world ( ... around HALF that of the UK and US - and around a quarter of the "basket case" that is the EU) Australia's economy is the ENVY of the world Show us a similar model of economy that is in better shape than Australia's ( ... and forget the old mining boom "furphy" - which accounts for less than 5% of GDP) Oh, the GFC stimulus. Yes, I've heard that one. Personally speaking, better roads, health care, education, investing in Aged Care, mental health, homeless and a dozen other causes would have been just as effective to use as an economic stimulant. All the Builders Early Retirement (BER) did was waste money on overpriced halls and unusable tiny tuckshops, and the Governments total lack of consultation with the states Education departments saw a golden opportunity wasted. Labors answer to the GFC was akin to them building 30 meter high gold plated dildo's on both sides of the highway leading to NSW every hundred meters. Any fool can spend money buzz, spending it wisely needs someone else. And Labor are very very foolish.

You might want to put down your your copy of "The Australian" and consider the 98% of the 8000 odd BER projects that DID give "value for money" (... independent audit figures) in the largest nation building project in Australia's history

And also bear in mind, that preparing to build a hospital - or road - does NOT provide EMERGENCY stimulus to insulate from a financial disaster due in MONTHS

In fact, the most SUCCESSFUL measure of the program $950 supplimentry tax return which held up the retail and hospitality sectors - preventing a "domino effect collapse" of every other employment sector in the country

Not to mention all the guys who died in the botched rushed jobs.

Actually Buzz, if the Labor Government did such a good job .......

Care to tell me why they were the FIRST one term Goverment to lose its majority in almost a century?

Hardly "good" Government eh?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2012 at 6:01pm:

Not to mention all the guys who died in the botched rushed jobs. Actually Buzz, if the Labor Government did such a good job ....... Care to tell me why they were the FIRST one term Goverment to lose its majority in almost a century? Hardly "good" Government eh?

Because like you the majority of people dont think objectively about the issues.  They rely on right wing media to formulate their views for them.

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2012 at 6:30pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3rd, 2012 at 6:01pm: Not to mention all the guys who died in the botched rushed jobs. Actually Buzz, if the Labor Government did such a good job ....... Care to tell me why they were the FIRST one term Goverment to lose its majority in almost a century? Hardly "good" Government eh? Because like you the majority of people dont think objectively about the issues.  They rely on right wing media to formulate their views for them.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It was all the media's fault.

Really it was a good Government the fact the people removed their majority after just a single term was all the fault of the media.

Of course.....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2012 at 6:32pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2012 at 6:30pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3rd, 2012 at 6:01pm: Not to mention all the guys who died in the botched rushed jobs. Actually Buzz, if the Labor Government did such a good job ....... Care to tell me why they were the FIRST one term Goverment to lose its majority in almost a century? Hardly "good" Government eh? Because like you the majority of people dont think objectively about the issues.  They rely on right wing media to formulate their views for them. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh It was all the media's fault. Really it was a good Government the fact the people removed their majority after just a single term was all the fault of the media. Of course.....

No . Not ALL the medias fault.

Stupid people have to take responsibility too.


You are all for taking personal responsibility arent you andrei?

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2012 at 6:36pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3rd, 2012 at 6:32pm: darkhall67 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2012 at 6:30pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3rd, 2012 at 6:01pm: Not to mention all the guys who died in the botched rushed jobs. Actually Buzz, if the Labor Government did such a good job ....... Care to tell me why they were the FIRST one term Goverment to lose its majority in almost a century? Hardly "good" Government eh? Because like you the majority of people dont think objectively about the issues.  They rely on right wing media to formulate their views for them. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh It was all the media's fault. Really it was a good Government the fact the people removed their majority after just a single term was all the fault of the media. Of course..... No . Not ALL the medias fault. Stupid people have to take responsibility too. You are all for taking personal responsibility arent you andrei?

So you are saying labor are taking full responsibility.

iT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!!