Labor wants Budget deficit spending to save jobs, Coalition wants savage spending cuts

    MALCOLM FARR NATIONAL POLITICAL EDITOR
    news.com.au
    April 22, 2013


LABOR is today campaigning for the preservation of its $4 billion superannuation tax cut for low income earners as stark differences with the Coalition emerge over how to manage spending.     :-?

The Government is warning that abolition of the retirement savings assistance would hurt shop workers, check-out chicks and unskilled kitchen staff the most.

The Government and the Opposition agree that money will be tight for the May 14 Budget, but Labor wants deficit spending to save jobs and the Coalition wants savage spending cuts and removal of big programs such as carbon pricing.     :(

The debate centres on what Treasurer Wayne Swan yesterday called a $7.5 billion sledgehammer blow to federal finances caused by the high Australian dollar and a fall in exports.

One of the casualties of a Coalition government would be the 15 per cent tax break for the superannuation accounts of workers on $37,000 a year and less.     :o

Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten today released new research showing 218,850 retail workers would suffer if the Government's 15 per cent tax break for those earning $37,000 a year or less was abolished.    

They would be followed by 145,999 checkout operators and 93,495 kitchen hands. These were the top three occupations, in numbers of workers, benefitting from the tax relief.     :(

The tax cut affecting a total of 3.6 million workers saving for retirement began last July but Opposition Leader Tony Abbott yesterday confirmed a Coalition government would abolish it because it was to be funded by the mining tax, which would be repealed.

"So sure, the current government is making great play of what it says is our attack on low income earners' superannuation," Mr Abbott told Sky News yesterday.

"But we said from the beginning – we were upfront and honest before an election about this – if it can't be funded, it can't be paid..."

He accused the Government of "mortgaging the future to try to buy votes": "There are lots of promises that the current government will make going into the election that the Coalition simply won't match."

Superannuation Minister Shorten said: "I'd rather see a $500 boost to the super account of a kitchen hand or a checkout operator or a farm hand than into Tony Abbott's pocket."     ;)   

He said: "I'm talking about mums working part-time while they care for young kids being hit with a $500 tax bill for contributing to her superannuation. That's not fair or smart.

"Women are already retiring with less because of the disparity in their pay compared to men, as well as the time they take out of the workforce to raise their children.

"Let's not make that situation worse, let's try to address it."

Other workers most affected by the superannuation tax cut include 89,722 in the hospitality industry, 83,167 cleaners and laundry staff, 57,696 receptionists, and 46,703 general clerks.     :-?

Mr Abbott said the Coalition would not be making big spending promises and said Australia was experiencing "a time of great fiscal stringency".

And he was backed up by Treasurer Wayne Swan who told ABC TV that the combination of the Australian dollar's high exchange rate and the fall in revenue from exports had reduced Government revenue.

"And as a consequence of that, that's caused a hit, if you like, a sledgehammer to revenues in the budget since the mid-year update of something like $7.5 billion," said Mr Swan.

"And of course the impact won't just be in this financial year, it will also be across the (four year) forward estimates.

"This is one of the reasons why I made the point at the end of last year that we were unlikely to return to surplus in 2012-13 because of this hit, if you like, to revenue from the high dollar and, of course, the lower terms of trade."

The Treasurer said there would not be "savage cuts across the Budget" to make up for the lost revenue because that would cost jobs.     :)

"So our approach is very clear - in this budget we will support jobs and growth, we'll make the smart investments for the future and we'll do that within the context of a responsible medium-term fiscal policy," he said.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/superannuation/labor-wants-budget-deficit-spending-to-save-jobs-coalition-wants-savage-spending-cuts/story-e6frfmdi-1226625493892#ixzz2RECVHtEz

One of the casualties of a Coalition government would be the 15 per cent tax break for the superannuation accounts of workers on $37,000 a year and less.     :o       

Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten today released new research showing 218,850 retail workers would suffer if the Government's 15 per cent tax break for those earning $37,000 a year or less was abolished.          

imcrookonit

Sorry politically I can not agree at all, the ALP started a phoney class war on superannuation and yet again they turned a potential area of strength into a weakness. 100% disagree with this new attack on the coalition at the other end of the class structure, it just won't work.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3742058.htm

Quote:

In a new report out today, the independent think tank the Grattan Institute says all governments, state and federal, are at risk of posting huge deficits for the next decade. It says combined state and federal budgets are at risk of ballooning out to a combined deficit of at least $60 billion a year by 2023. The Institute's CEO John Daley is speaking here to chief political correspondent Sabra Lane. We think we're looking at a collective deficit for Australian governments of about four per cent of GDP over the next decade. In today's terms, that's about $60 billion. And what's driving that is a number of things: firstly there's a number of free kicks that we have to give back. So we've had budgets that have been made to look very good as a result of the mining boom - they've got revenue supposed to come in from the Minerals Resource Rent Tax and the carbon price and also some forecasting of company taxes. And all of those things are not going to happen and so we've going to have to give those things back and consequently budget surpluses - or more to the point deficits are going to be much worse than we thought. And then the other big driver is around health costs. If health costs keep going up at the same rate in the next decade as they have over the last decade, they'll take an extra two per cent of GDP in government spending. So those are the kind of pressures that we're looking at. You add them up and you get to about four per cent of GDP, and that is clearly not a sustainable situation.

Why don't you Leftards grow a brain?

"The times they are a changing".  The nation can no longer afford the big freebies and pork barrelling of both sides of the political spectrum.

If the majority that pays the minority of tax keeps voting itself money from the public trough this place is heading for Keating's banana republic.

The 'pain' is only compounded each year that the Treasury spends beyond its means and idiot Labor have not been able to bring down a budget within the Nation's means in over 20 years. >:(

Run the economy?  They'd lose money running a chook raffle. :D

It would be nice to help everyone. Unfortunately, it has to be paid by someone and since e are in growing debt and deficit then it has to go along with other programs. Im all for cutting welfare across the board just not exempting any one particular group.

all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING...

at the moment we have a HUGE immigration problem we have uninvited guests arriving alm ost daily..these people have to be sheltered fed clothed. given medical aid. have people to look after them????..24/7.. on top of that we have to pay people to investigate them.

.at what cost to us we will never ever find out.. but its a cost that isnt going to go away overnight.   

money will never be dragged back from these people.. like we can do with our Uni students...

no this cost is blowing in the wind.and it is growing by the day. its a growing  cost we seem to have no control over.

no matter what is budgeted for this problem it will never be enough.

and the money has to come from somewhere....

btw the Libs didnt create this MONSTER

wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 7:13am:

One of the casualties of a Coalition government would be the 15 per cent tax break for the superannuation accounts of workers on $37,000 a year and less.     :o        Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten today released new research showing 218,850 retail workers would suffer if the Government's 15 per cent tax break for those earning $37,000 a year or less was abolished.

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has conceded the Government needs to be more cautious about spruiking mining opportunities in the state.

Rare earths company Arafura Resources is to scrap a minerals processing plant planned for Whyalla and keep more of its operations close to the mine site north of Alice Springs.

Mr Weatherill said he agreed with the Opposition the Government had a track record of overselling mining projects but under-delivering.

"I think this was a bit over-spruiked. It was always a speculative project but at the time it was always one that was a realistic project," he said.

"We did no more or less than back up what the company was saying about what they proposed to do, but I think we should be a little more cautious about that and obviously cases like this indicate that."

Dave Sweeney from the Australian Conservation Foundation said the loss of hundreds of potential jobs was a disappointment for Whyalla, but the decision against shipping material south for processing was a win for the environment.

"There are real concerns with this sort of processing and rare earth processing - you're dealing with radioactive materials including uranium," he said.

"You would have radioactive exposures and elevated radiation levels in the area, you'd be left with a waste stream that would include a range of radioactive materials that pose a long-term human and environmental problem."





Topics: states-and-territories, mining-rural, mining-industry, government-and-politics, whyalla-5600, adelaide-5000, sa, australia

First posted 11 minutes ago


More  stories from South Australia

cods wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 9:55am:

all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING...

link please  .....

John Smith wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:10am:

cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  .....

the usual response from someone who never reads the news anywhere but on here.

John Smith wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:10am:

cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  .....

Google Gratton Institute

Swagman wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:32am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:10am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  ..... Google Gratton Institute

cue the predictable complaint that it is supposedly a 'right wing think tank' and can therefore be ignored.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:15am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:10am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  ..... the usual response from someone who never reads the news anywhere but on here.

Those same economists you berate every time they give labor a tick?

What's your a favorite post longy????

Oh that's right
"Those same economists who missed the GFC"

But leaving politics aside,
Sure let cut spending, I believe mining companies got over 100 million in diesel subsidies last financial year,
Why the bugger are my tax dollars paying for their fuel

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:39am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:15am: John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:10am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  ..... the usual response from someone who never reads the news anywhere but on here. Those same economists you berate every time they give labor a tick? What's your a favorite post longy???? Oh that's right "Those same economists who missed the GFC" But leaving politics aside, Sure let cut spending, I believe mining companies got over 100 million in diesel subsidies last financial year, Why the bugger are my tax dollars paying for their fuel

dont know but if i had to choose between a subsidy for a company that is employing people and paying massive taxes and a baby bonus given to people as a reward for having sex with someone they can recall and popping out another welfare recipient... guess which Id choose.

There are a great number of subsidies and welfare payments that need to be removed. You identified one and I did the other.  But everytime we talk of cutting spending it is targetted rather than spread across the community. let everyone pay the price for getting the economy back on target.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:49am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:39am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:15am: John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:10am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  ..... the usual response from someone who never reads the news anywhere but on here. Those same economists you berate every time they give labor a tick? What's your a favorite post longy???? Oh that's right "Those same economists who missed the GFC" But leaving politics aside, Sure let cut spending, I believe mining companies got over 100 million in diesel subsidies last financial year, Why the bugger are my tax dollars paying for their fuel dont know but if i had to choose between a subsidy for a company that is employing people and paying massive taxes and a baby bonus given to people as a reward for having sex with someone they can recall and popping out another welfare recipient... guess which Id choose. There are a great number of subsidies and welfare payments that need to be removed. You identified one and I did the other.  But everytime we talk of cutting spending it is targetted rather than spread across the community. let everyone pay the price for getting the economy back on target.

Hey don't get me wrong, I'm old school, anyone earning over 80k should receive NO government benefits.

Returning to the company angle I think you find as a % of earnings by the time you factor in deprecation and the rest they pay less than you and me.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:39am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:15am: John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:10am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  ..... the usual response from someone who never reads the news anywhere but on here. Those same economists you berate every time they give labor a tick? What's your a favorite post longy???? Oh that's right "Those same economists who missed the GFC" But leaving politics aside, Sure let cut spending, I believe mining companies got over 100 million in diesel subsidies last financial year, Why the bugger are my tax dollars paying for their fuel

hey smithy I didnt say I believe them.... but after the way the labs defend them I thought it was right they should take note what they are now saying..

I am one of these people that makes her own mind up..I do a bit of reading and then I look at whats happening..jobs going and so forth and then I come to a conclusion....quite often its right...

since 2007 all we have heard of is what the economist say about our country and yes I did ask how come they missed the GFC didnt even give a hint really until it was on us..

but it was in regards to the applause the left were giving economists.

what they are saying is things are not good.....but they are saying it once again after the damage has been done.....or at least thats the way I read it..we are in massive debt and its getting worse.....now how bad it is I wouldnt know and neither would you. swan would rather we didnt find out until after the election..

but we are more aware of the economists now than ever before....and if the govt isnt up front with us.. who else is there?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:49am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:39am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:15am: John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:10am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  ..... the usual response from someone who never reads the news anywhere but on here. Those same economists you berate every time they give labor a tick? What's your a favorite post longy???? Oh that's right "Those same economists who missed the GFC" But leaving politics aside, Sure let cut spending, I believe mining companies got over 100 million in diesel subsidies last financial year, Why the bugger are my tax dollars paying for their fuel dont know but if i had to choose between a subsidy for a company that is employing people and paying massive taxes and a baby bonus given to people as a reward for having sex with someone they can recall and popping out another welfare recipient... guess which Id choose. There are a great number of subsidies and welfare payments that need to be removed. You identified one and I did the other.  But everytime we talk of cutting spending it is targetted rather than spread across the community. let everyone pay the price for getting the economy back on target.

Is this the same longie who before was saying that Howard had gotten middle welfare right?

Cutting welfare needs to be targetted.  You don't just say, " if the middle class can't get it no one can".  You need to appreciate that welfare is a need for some more than others.  And removing for all as you're suggesting will simply result in more people finding difficulty, meaning more either completely unable to participate in the economy, or simply put more on the streets. 

We can all argue that people need to work. Boone disagrees with that. But hard times Occur and you don't simply say bad luck to those who actually need support just because the government can no longer afford to pay those 80k+ a baby bonus.  Remove these nonsense spendings on the 80k+, but not for those who ACTUALLY need it.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 11:22am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:49am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:39am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:15am: John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:10am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  ..... the usual response from someone who never reads the news anywhere but on here. Those same economists you berate every time they give labor a tick? What's your a favorite post longy???? Oh that's right "Those same economists who missed the GFC" But leaving politics aside, Sure let cut spending, I believe mining companies got over 100 million in diesel subsidies last financial year, Why the bugger are my tax dollars paying for their fuel dont know but if i had to choose between a subsidy for a company that is employing people and paying massive taxes and a baby bonus given to people as a reward for having sex with someone they can recall and popping out another welfare recipient... guess which Id choose. There are a great number of subsidies and welfare payments that need to be removed. You identified one and I did the other.  But everytime we talk of cutting spending it is targetted rather than spread across the community. let everyone pay the price for getting the economy back on target. Hey don't get me wrong, I'm old school, anyone earning over 80k should receive NO government benefits. Returning to the company angle I think you find as a % of earnings by the time you factor in deprecation and the rest they pay less than you and me.

I am actually starting to think that the real problem in govt revenue is that it has its fingers in too many pies and is concentrating on the peripheral and minor while ignoring the central and major. Govt's PRIMARY purpose is to provide defence, law and order, education and health services. Beyond that everything else is optional - even pensions. Not that I am against welfare as Im not. But there is CORE welfare - eg aged pension and dole and disability. but there is a hell of a lot of other welfare that is not warrented in an environment where our roads fall apart, hospital beds close but we give money to people for having sex and popping out another welfare recipient.

I would agree that higher income earners should not recieve most of the welfare benefits. however, in return for that it would be incumbent that they aren't also used as cash cows to provide free homes, free cars and a daily massage for the welfare class. IM all for equal treatment for all. let super taxes be the same for everyone. but let subsdidies and welfare go where it is deserved.  then maybe EVERYONE can have a tax cut.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 11:22am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:49am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:39am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:15am: John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:10am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  ..... the usual response from someone who never reads the news anywhere but on here. Those same economists you berate every time they give labor a tick? What's your a favorite post longy???? Oh that's right "Those same economists who missed the GFC" But leaving politics aside, Sure let cut spending, I believe mining companies got over 100 million in diesel subsidies last financial year, Why the bugger are my tax dollars paying for their fuel dont know but if i had to choose between a subsidy for a company that is employing people and paying massive taxes and a baby bonus given to people as a reward for having sex with someone they can recall and popping out another welfare recipient... guess which Id choose. There are a great number of subsidies and welfare payments that need to be removed. You identified one and I did the other.  But everytime we talk of cutting spending it is targetted rather than spread across the community. let everyone pay the price for getting the economy back on target. Hey don't get me wrong, I'm old school, anyone earning over 80k should receive NO government benefits. Returning to the company angle I think you find as a % of earnings by the time you factor in deprecation and the rest they pay less than you and me.

comparisons between company and personal tax will never be fair or reasonable. Profits that are disbursed are taxed at the personal rate. profits held in the company eventually get disbursed to individuals. Companies already pay the lions share of taxation while providing the employment that pays income tax on the rest.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:35am:

Swagman wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:32am: John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:10am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:55am: all economists are saying the same thing... STOP THE SPENDING... link please  ..... Google Gratton Institute cue the predictable complaint that it is supposedly a 'right wing think tank' and can therefore be ignored.

The claim was "all economists".

Are all of our economists providing input to the Gratton Institute?

Most?

Some?

Only those we ask??

:)

I know its going back a few posts but when have you seen me advocate for the Baby Bonus?

Never & you know it, however picking the most wasteful of handouts does add weight to your argument


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:49am:

dont know but if i had to choose between a subsidy for a company that is employing people and paying massive taxes and a baby bonus given to people as a reward for having sex with someone they can recall and popping out another welfare recipient... guess which Id choose

How would you go if this was offered


Quote:

dont know but if i had to choose between a subsidy for a company that is employing people and paying massive taxes or the adequate funding for Gonski or the NDIS,  guess which Id choose

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 2:20pm:

I know its going back a few posts but when have you seen me advocate for the Baby Bonus? Never & you know it, however picking the most wasteful of handouts does add weight to your argument longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:49am: dont know but if i had to choose between a subsidy for a company that is employing people and paying massive taxes and a baby bonus given to people as a reward for having sex with someone they can recall and popping out another welfare recipient... guess which Id choose How would you go if this was offered Quote: dont know but if i had to choose between a subsidy for a company that is employing people and paying massive taxes or the adequate funding for Gonski or the NDIS,  guess which Id choose

oooo!! nice rebuttal. I'd chose Gonski any day. And I guess that is the point of the argument that not all subsidies and welfare payments are created equal. when things get tough on the revenue side for govt there are some prety obvious targets to go for first. baby bonus is a early one plus reducing the amount of family tax benefit (not removing it tho). large amounts to be saved yet can be argued are not exactly the cornerstone of social welfare.

When I hear people wanting more for the dole perhaps such an increase should be funded by the removal of less-worthy payments. most complaints are about wanting MORE in total rather that better prioritised amounts. Kat would be happy if the dole was increased and maybe it should. But how about other payments are reduced to fund it?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 3:46pm:

oooo!! nice rebuttal. I'd chose Gonski any day. And I guess that is the point of the argument that not all subsidies and welfare payments are created equal. when things get tough on the revenue side for govt there are some prety obvious targets to go for first. baby bonus is a early one plus reducing the amount of family tax benefit (not removing it tho). large amounts to be saved yet can be argued are not exactly the cornerstone of social welfare. When I hear people wanting more for the dole perhaps such an increase should be funded by the removal of less-worthy payments. most complaints are about wanting MORE in total rather that better prioritised amounts. Kat would be happy if the dole was increased and maybe it should. But how about other payments are reduced to fund it?

Mate I really want to believe you would support such a review & its outcomes, but unfortunately your actions say you wouldn't.

Your posts that bagged the means testing of the PHR & also I'm pretty sure you've come down on Tony's side re Super, prove that whilst you write a good post, its hard to tell if its non fiction. :-?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 4:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 3:46pm: oooo!! nice rebuttal. I'd chose Gonski any day. And I guess that is the point of the argument that not all subsidies and welfare payments are created equal. when things get tough on the revenue side for govt there are some prety obvious targets to go for first. baby bonus is a early one plus reducing the amount of family tax benefit (not removing it tho). large amounts to be saved yet can be argued are not exactly the cornerstone of social welfare. When I hear people wanting more for the dole perhaps such an increase should be funded by the removal of less-worthy payments. most complaints are about wanting MORE in total rather that better prioritised amounts. Kat would be happy if the dole was increased and maybe it should. But how about other payments are reduced to fund it? Mate I really want to believe you would support such a review & its outcomes, but unfortunately your actions say you wouldn't. Your posts that bagged the means testing of the PHR & also I'm pretty sure you've come down on Tony's side re Super, prove that whilst you write a good post, its hard to tell if its non fiction. :-?

i support a concept called fairness. 'fairness' is not the same as compassion or bias. Fairness implies equality. In something as LIFE-LONG as saving for retirement I see no reason why anyone should be treated differently than another. same tax rules, same benefits, same obligations. In the case of welfare, it should be granted when necessary to whomever necessary. this is FAIR and intrinsically means that the more well off will receive less or none of it. No problem with that for me. I mainly object to the means testing of the PHR because it is just another ency-based policy designed to get votes from the welfare class and annoy those that dont vote conservative. In a fair and balanced world I might even support it - although the evidence suggest that is it bad policy regardless.

I dont object to means testing per se but I strongly object to the manner in which it is applied which is with bias, envy and as a weapon. I think the age pension should NOT be means tested as a matter of principle or at least, the income and asset test should be such that it excludes only the genuinely wealthy - not the comfortably well off.

The problem with debating all of these matters on here is that it is almost toally a partisan discussion based on either andres self-centred greed or imfullofit's lazy sense of entitlement and greed.  Good policy considers neither extreme. However, good policy gets lost in the search for votes. It is a fundamental weakness of our political system.