How John Howard's tax cuts undid his protégé Tony Abbott

There should have been a soundtrack of flapping wings and squawking to accompany Treasurer Joe Hockey’s release of the budget update on Monday. So many chickens were coming home to roost.

Hockey’s own personal chickens were the least of them, notwithstanding his repeated promise before the election: “We will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term.”

That promise was long ago rendered non-core. May’s budget forecast was a deficit of more than $29 billion. For that, Hockey blamed the previous Labor government.

Things have grown vastly worse in the six months since then, though. Monday’s Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) numbers showed the budget deficit had ballooned a further $10.6 billion to more than $40 billion.

Now the promise is for the budget to get back in the black five years hence, and that is based on some pretty optimistic assumptions. Thus Hockey looks likely to emulate his Labor predecessor, Wayne Swan, and never deliver a surplus.

For Hockey to make good on his promise, three preconditions would have to be met. First, the economic forecast would have to be correct, and the experience of recent years is that they have been consistently over-optimistic. Second, Hockey would have to avoid being dumped from the treasury portfolio. And third, the Abbott government would have to survive into a third term, for that is how far away the predicted surplus is.

Already the polls and the talk in Canberra suggest those last two preconditions may not be met. No government in living memory has performed so badly, so early, in the opinion polls.

Understandably, Hockey did not look very happy on Monday. Also, he had apparently forgotten he was part of a “no surprises, no excuses” government.

He reached for lots of excuses: falling iron ore prices, wheat prices, an unprecedented drop in Australia’s terms of trade, a recalcitrant senate, unexpectedly low wages growth, unexpectedly high benefit payments.

Yet the treasurer made no mention of the underlying cause of the mess. He neglected to point out that most of those roosting chickens, now leaving great splotches of guano on his reputation and his budget and Tony Abbott’s government, actually belonged to John Howard and Peter Costello.

Were it not for them, Hockey – and Swan before him – would almost certainly have been able to announce balanced budgets or surpluses.

“The tax cuts Howard and Costello gave are now costing [the budget] about $30 billion a year,” says John Hewson.

Instead, Australia finds itself in the remarkable position, at the end of the biggest resources boom in its history, looking at budget red ink for as far as the eye can see. And Smokin’ Joe Hockey, once among the most popular members of Team Abbott, finds himself the focus of blame.

This is understandable, but also a bit unfair. The budget is not just his work. It represents the economic world view of the whole government. Indeed, it represents the right-wing ideology of two governments: the Howard government and that of Tony Abbott, who memorably described himself as the political love child of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop.

The budget, with its raft of grossly regressive savings measures, can be seen as just one part of a long and concerted effort to redistribute income upwards.

IMF assessment

That effort began more than a decade ago when John Howard and Hockey’s predecessor, Peter Costello, ran the most profligate government in Australian history.

Profligate is not our word. It was the word used by the International Monetary Fund in a major report it released early last year, that examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 major economies, identifying periods of government prudence and profligacy in spending.

Overall, Australia was judged very favourably. For most of the country’s history, governments of both persuasions had been prudent economic managers. The IMF identified only four periods of profligacy. The two biggest were during the Howard–Costello years. They were in 2003 and then between 2005 and 2007, and they accompanied the mining boom.

On its face, the IMF assessment might seem harsh. After all, before they were voted out in 2007, Howard and Costello had delivered six budget surpluses in a row.

But they also seriously undermined the structural integrity of the budget by making big spending commitments and giving huge tax cuts, on the basis of a flood of revenue that would inevitably dry up.

“You can sum it up in four words,” says Chris Richardson of Deloitte Access Economics. “Temporary boom, permanent promises.”

For a period money roared in to the economy, as a result of what was happening in China and elsewhere. According to Richardson, this enormous boom made the government of Howard and Costello look better than it was.

cont.

“Subsequently we’ve heard the sucking sound as the money’s gone back down the gurgler, which has made Rudd, Gillard and Swan look worse than they were,” he said. “And it’s now making Abbott and Hockey look worse than they are.”

‘They spent the lot’

To be fair to Howard and Costello, they were encouraged by the bureaucrats in Treasury, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and even the Reserve Bank to think this boom was different, and that the money would continue to roll in for decades to come.

“That was a failing. We’ve never had a permanent boom before,” says Richardson. “Anyway, they spent the lot. On tax cuts, baby bonuses, and so on.”

John Hewson, former Liberal leader, economist and now professor with the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, underlines the point: “The tax cuts Howard and Costello gave are now costing [the budget] about $30 billion a year, and the deficit’s $40 billion.”

Without those cuts and the $9 billion Hockey gave – unasked for and against the will of treasury – to the Reserve Bank, says Hewson, “the deficit problem wouldn’t exist”.

And that’s without including some $40 billion in tax concessions for superannuation, which accrue overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 20 per cent of taxpayers.

“You can easily add it up to show that the deficit that exists today is a fake number,” says Hewson. “They’ve basically imposed it on themselves.”

More correctly, they imposed it on the less well-off.

Matt Grudnoff, the senior economist at The Australia Institute, calculates that over the seven years from 2005-06 to 2011-12, the federal government lost $169 billion in revenue as a result of the income tax cuts alone.

“Of the $169 billion in tax cuts, 42 per cent of them, or $71 billion, went to the top 10 per cent of income earners,” he wrote in his paper “Tax cuts that broke the budget”. “The top 10 per cent got more in tax cuts than the bottom 80 per cent.”

On Grudnoff’s figuring, this year’s budget would have been fatter by almost $40 billion had the cuts not been given.

Rudd followed suit

The Howard–Costello government delivered five rounds of income tax cuts, and had promised more during the 2007 election campaign. The incoming Rudd Labor government, having committed to match the Coalition’s promised cuts, delivered them.

So Labor cannot escape all blame for the current state of the budget. But it is largely guilty of just proceeding to do what the Howard government would have done, by hacking into revenue. Its spending, contrary to the consistent assertions of conservatives over recent years, was not the issue.

That has been made abundantly clear by various analyses of the structural decline of the budget.

Having detailed two of these reports last year – by the treasury department and the independent Parliamentary Budget Office –The Sydney Morning Herald’s economics editor Ross Gittins apportioned the relative culpability of the two parties thus:

“They say it’s only when the tide goes out you discover who’s been swimming naked. It’s the same when you calculate the ‘structural’ budget balance. And we’ve just learnt that though Wayne Swan’s cossie has slipped revealingly, Peter Costello was completely starkers.”

Not surprisingly, Swan endorses these analyses: “It’s the revenue, stupid,” he says. “It was a revenue story throughout.”

Chris Richardson agrees.

“To understand Canberra over the past decade, you have to follow the money,” he says, and takes us on a quick tour, complete with roller-coaster graphs.

The boom that made the Coalition government look good lasted less than a year into Labor’s term in office, he says.

“Then it all came crashing down with the GFC [at the end of 2008]. Then it roared back up in 2010-11, which is when Swan said we would be back in surplus in three years. He thought the commodity boom was returning, but in reality coal and iron ore prices had peaked in 2011.”

Last surplus forecast

On October 22, 2012, MYEFO came out, for the last time forecasting a surplus in 2012-13.

“That happened to be the first day for payment of the new mining tax and the day for the quarterly payments of a couple of other taxes,” Richardson recalls.

But receipts were nowhere near the forecasts issued that very day.

“By the end of the day, MYEFO was all over, red rover. The surplus was gone. It was a bizarre day. From there it was a steep line of revenue write-downs,” says Richardson.

Swan recalls that time only too well, and particularly the press conference he was forced to give five days before Christmas 2012, “when I had to go out and admit we weren’t coming back to surplus”.

“The last lot of revenue downgrades was so large it would have been damaging to the economy to try to force it back to surplus in 2012-13,” he says.

That was the worst, but he says: “All of our MYEFOs from 2010 onwards were like bloody budgets, because every forecast came in under.”

Joe Hockey is fast learning how that feels.

The important thing about all this history is how it illuminates the present.

It is largely because of decisions taken a decade and more ago that young unemployed people, pensioners, students, the sick and the recipients of foreign aid are now being targeted by budget cuts.

The Howard government was blessed with a huge windfall. Fiscal prudence, based on the understanding that all previous mining booms have ended in busts, would dictate that revenue be preserved somehow

It might have done this in a number of ways, such as spending on big infrastructure projects. Instead infrastructure spending slipped to its lowest level in decades as a proportion of GDP.

Or it might have put the extra tax revenue into a sovereign wealth fund, like so many resource-dependent economies around the world have done.

It might have kicked one-off payments into the superannuation accounts of Australian workers.

But that is not what the Howard government did.

“Not only did they give away  $40 billion, but they skewed the giveaways heavily in favour of the wealthy,” says Hewson.

“Now, take that expenditure history and then look at this budget, with its 10-12 per cent cut to the disposable incomes at the bottom end of the income scale – people on $50,000 or $60,000, and less than 1 per cent cut to disposable income at the top end.

“What we have is the legacy of past inequity plus the inequity of the present measures. And they wonder why their budget gets slammed.”

The interesting thing in political terms is that there was no such outrage back when Howard and Costello were handing out tax cuts on an annual basis.

So long as everyone was getting a little extra, it seemed, most people were prepared to overlook the fact that 80 per cent of the extra lolly was being given to 20 per cent of the populace.

Clearly it is much easier to get away with giving to the rich than it is to get away with taking from the poor, even though both approaches result in the same outcome: a less equitable society.

Howard and Costello were lucky. The years of abundance allowed them to conceal their regressive economic agenda.

But in these straitened times, there is no such cover. Not for Abbott and Hockey and not, in retrospect, for Howard and Costello. Abbott’s great mentor has gifted him as political inheritance a tax system that might yet destroy his government.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2014/12/20/how-john-howards-tax-cuts-undid-his-protege-tony-abbott/14189940001389#.VJjCal4AAA

All a leftie conspiracy I suppose Longie?

Absolutely 100% correct and this has been known since the early ’00s when Christ Richardson of Access Economics revealed the truth of the Structural Budget Deficit.

The regressive nature of the Howard & Costello handouts/tax cuts is also well known.

We MUST cut into the tax expenditures and put some of that money into an increase in NewStart and some into running out FTTH again, not this MTM rubbish.

The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)   

wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 8:22am:

The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)

Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes!

Carbon tax gone.  Still waiting for the $550 a year better off.   :(

Is it not forever true that lefties LOVE higher taxes.  they lust after them and want more and more of them. Bring it on!  forget about tax integrity or God Forbid, lowering taxes.

the only thing they love more than higher taxes is criticising Liberal taxes such as the GST.  If labor had brought in the GST - and they were the ones that originally proposed it - the GST would have started at 20% and be pushing towards 30%.

and we would still have a deficit because labor only ever spends more than it gets.

I've been saying for a while now that Costello's biggest mistake as Treasurer was funding permanent budget measures out of temporary revenue. Costello had better options, some examples:
* invest in infrastructure, perhaps by creating an infrastructure fund
* put the proceeds into the Future Fund
* buy back outstanding government bonds

These are examples of temporary expenditure that offer a benefit to the country and where spending can be stopped without causing political pain.

Costello did none of these things. Instead, he cut taxes and ramped up middle class welfare. The massive expansion of middle class welfare under the Howard government was their worst legacy, and it's going to take some years to unravel this waste. Cutting taxes was also a poor decision.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 8:39am:

wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:22am: The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)    Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes!

They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt which included a fair whack of Treasurer Howard debt. The surpluses all got spent—tax cuts, buying vote, middleclass welfare and pork. There were no billions of dollars “banked.”

Not only has the H&C irresponsible spending rooted the Budget the boom all this spending fanned means that we have a private sector heavily in debt, so heavily that even the low interest rates applying now are not tempting people to borrow and spend.

Bam wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 9:31am:

I've been saying for a while now that Costello's biggest mistake as Treasurer was funding permanent budget measures out of temporary revenue. Costello had better options, some examples: * invest in infrastructure, perhaps by creating an infrastructure fund * put the proceeds into the Future Fund * buy back outstanding government bonds These are examples of temporary expenditure that offer a benefit to the country and where spending can be stopped without causing political pain. Costello did none of these things. Instead, he cut taxes and ramped up middle class welfare. The massive expansion of middle class welfare under the Howard government was their worst legacy, and it's going to take some years to unravel this waste. Cutting taxes was also a poor decision.

this is a trick question.

Are you in favour of automatic tax indexation?

You know what I am leading to so it will be interesting to see what you reply with - if you reply at all.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 8:39am:

wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:22am: The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)    Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes!

What did they actually build apart from an 800million dollar railway that goes from nowhere to nowhere than nobody uses.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 9:36am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:39am: wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:22am: The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)    Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes! They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt which included a fair whack of Treasurer Howard debt. The surpluses all got spent—tax cuts, buying vote, middleclass welfare and pork. There were no billions of dollars “banked.” Not only has the H&C irresponsible spending rooted the Budget the boom all this spending fanned means that we have a private sector heavily in debt, so heavily that even the low interest rates applying now are not tempting people to borrow and spend.

as you do so spectacularly well, you got everything wrong.  they sold around $50B in assets to pay down a $96B debt of which just $9B was accrued during Howards time.  They also put $45B into the bank in cash as well as created a $80B future fund or a grant total of $220B EXTRA that didn't exist before.

you claim the surpluses were spent - but they weren't.

.... and everybody else..... their fixation on upgrading the 'mining boom' left us with nothing to deal with the real world when it returned here.....

Liberal policy in the 1980's gave us affirmative action in the public service and its creep into other arenas of work and life... thus directly contributing to our current massive unemployed and under-employed.

Liberal and Labor policy in finding total non-laws with which to assail the legitimate gun-owning and potentially gun-owning public rendered countless innocents into 'created criminals', and has lead us directly into the current murk and myre of relationships between men and women, and the rise of the Feminazi.

'Rights Creep' laws such as 0.05 PCA, when the rest of the civilised world has a standard of 0.08 and a working stiff can be done for 0.051 for drinking two schooners on his way home from work..... thus recouping revenue and offering a 'halo effect' over the general public as part of the Reign of Terror in order to exert social control without much effort in pursuing crime.

You name it - past governments have a myriad of things to answer for... I think all of them would be best served by shutting their mouths at the moment..... lest they find themselves lying on the ground looking back at their body in the guillotine...

This is such a 'dud' argument.

Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST?


St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 9:36am:

They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt

If there was no Labor debt there would have been no reason to sell?

Besides it's not like Labor didn't sell anything? 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Untitled-2.jpg

Which Bank?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 9:46am:

.... and everybody else..... their fixation on upgrading the 'mining boom' left us with nothing to deal with the real world when it returned here..... Liberal policy in the 1980's gave us affirmative action in the public service and its creep into other arenas of work and life... thus directly contributing to our current massive unemployed and under-employed. Liberal and Labor policy in finding total non-laws with which to assail the legitimate gun-owning and potentially gun-owning public rendered countless innocents into 'created criminals', and has lead us directly into the current murk and myre of relationships between men and women, and the rise of the Feminazi. 'Rights Creep' laws such as 0.05 PCA, when the rest of the civilised world has a standard of 0.08 and a working stiff can be done for 0.051 for drinking two schooners on his way home from work..... thus recouping revenue and offering a 'halo effect' over the general public as part of the Reign of Terror in order to exert social control without much effort in pursuing crime. You name it - past governments have a myriad of things to answer for... I think all of them would be best served by shutting their mouths at the moment..... lest they find themselves lying on the ground looking back at their body in the guillotine...

you come up with so much crap some times.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 9:59am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:46am: .... and everybody else..... their fixation on upgrading the 'mining boom' left us with nothing to deal with the real world when it returned here..... Liberal policy in the 1980's gave us affirmative action in the public service and its creep into other arenas of work and life... thus directly contributing to our current massive unemployed and under-employed. Liberal and Labor policy in finding total non-laws with which to assail the legitimate gun-owning and potentially gun-owning public rendered countless innocents into 'created criminals', and has lead us directly into the current murk and myre of relationships between men and women, and the rise of the Feminazi. 'Rights Creep' laws such as 0.05 PCA, when the rest of the civilised world has a standard of 0.08 and a working stiff can be done for 0.051 for drinking two schooners on his way home from work..... thus recouping revenue and offering a 'halo effect' over the general public as part of the Reign of Terror in order to exert social control without much effort in pursuing crime. You name it - past governments have a myriad of things to answer for... I think all of them would be best served by shutting their mouths at the moment..... lest they find themselves lying on the ground looking back at their body in the guillotine... you come up with so much crap some times.

.. and you are totally incapable of responding to FACTS with any valid answer... good day to you.....

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 9:56am:

Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST?

from the bloke who whinged every time labor tried to cut spending ....

weren't you complaining every time labor tried to means test something? didn't you complain when labor tried to remove some tax perks for cars? You bitched and moaned every time they tried to cut something, and then you complain labor did nothing?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 9:42am:

Bam wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:31am: I've been saying for a while now that Costello's biggest mistake as Treasurer was funding permanent budget measures out of temporary revenue. Costello had better options, some examples: * invest in infrastructure, perhaps by creating an infrastructure fund * put the proceeds into the Future Fund * buy back outstanding government bonds These are examples of temporary expenditure that offer a benefit to the country and where spending can be stopped without causing political pain. Costello did none of these things. Instead, he cut taxes and ramped up middle class welfare. The massive expansion of middle class welfare under the Howard government was their worst legacy, and it's going to take some years to unravel this waste. Cutting taxes was also a poor decision.

this is a trick question.

Are you in favour of automatic tax indexation?

You know what I am leading to so it will be interesting to see what you reply with - if you reply at all.[/

John Smith wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:06am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? from the bloke who whinged every time labor tried to cut spending .... weren't you complaining every time labor tried to means test something? didn't you complain when labor tried to remove some tax perks for cars? You bitched and moaned every time they tried to cut something, and then you complain labor did nothing?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

the only time labor tried to cut spending was when they could take it from the 'rich'

did they reverse Howards tax cuts?  of course not.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:09am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:06am: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? from the bloke who whinged every time labor tried to cut spending .... weren't you complaining every time labor tried to means test something? didn't you complain when labor tried to remove some tax perks for cars? You bitched and moaned every time they tried to cut something, and then you complain labor did nothing?  ;D ;D ;D ;D the only time labor tried to cut spending was when they could take it from the 'rich' did they reverse Howards tax cuts?  of course not.

ahh, the take it from  the rich argument ... and then you cry that there is no middle class wealthfare  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:06am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? from the bloke who whinged every time labor tried to cut spending .... weren't you complaining every time labor tried to means test something? didn't you complain when labor tried to remove some tax perks for cars? You bitched and moaned every time they tried to cut something, and then you complain labor did nothing?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm not complaining Smithy.  I'm just pointing out that Labor had 2 terms to reverse Howard's tax cuts and GST and did effall which makes this structural deficit argument a dud.

Maybe Access economics should factor in the loss of 50% of GST revenues for 20 years after Dr John's Fightback policy was howled down by you Truebelievers?

Besides Labor in a way did reverse the tax cuts by accumulating a massive debt.  It's friggin tax-payers that have to pay the interest and taxpayers that have to pay it back.

That is a defacto tax increase with minimal political flack.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 9:44am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:39am: wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:22am: The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)    Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes! They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt which included a fair whack of Treasurer Howard debt. The surpluses all got spent—tax cuts, buying vote, middleclass welfare and pork. There were no billions of dollars “banked.” Not only has the H&C irresponsible spending rooted the Budget the boom all this spending fanned means that we have a private sector heavily in debt, so heavily that even the low interest rates applying now are not tempting people to borrow and spend. as you do so spectacularly well, you got everything wrong.  they sold around $50B in assets to pay down a $96B debt of which just $9B was accrued during Howards time.  They also put $45B into the bank in cash as well as created a $80B future fund or a grant total of $220B EXTRA that didn't exist before. you claim the surpluses were spent - but they weren't.

Maths isn't Georgie-Girl's strong point...

John Smith wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:12am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:09am: John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:06am: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? from the bloke who whinged every time labor tried to cut spending .... weren't you complaining every time labor tried to means test something? didn't you complain when labor tried to remove some tax perks for cars? You bitched and moaned every time they tried to cut something, and then you complain labor did nothing?  ;D ;D ;D ;D the only time labor tried to cut spending was when they could take it from the 'rich' did they reverse Howards tax cuts?  of course not. ahh, the take it from  the rich argument ... and then you cry that there is no middle class wealthfare  :D :D :D

it remains true just the same.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:26am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:12am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:09am: John Smith wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:06am: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? from the bloke who whinged every time labor tried to cut spending .... weren't you complaining every time labor tried to means test something? didn't you complain when labor tried to remove some tax perks for cars? You bitched and moaned every time they tried to cut something, and then you complain labor did nothing?  ;D ;D ;D ;D the only time labor tried to cut spending was when they could take it from the 'rich' did they reverse Howards tax cuts?  of course not. ahh, the take it from  the rich argument ... and then you cry that there is no middle class wealthfare  :D :D :D it remains true just the same.

It remains true for a reason ...
govt. is there to act as a back stop for those struggling, not to give back rebates to those that pay tax.

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 9:56am:

This is such a 'dud' argument. Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:36am: They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt If there was no Labor debt there would have been no reason to sell? Besides it's not like Labor didn't sell anything?  http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Untitled-2.jpg Which Bank?

So, where am I wrong?

Costello would have sold the assets anyway—and the lack of income from these former public assets is another drag on the Budget.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:33am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: This is such a 'dud' argument. Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:36am: They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt If there was no Labor debt there would have been no reason to sell? Besides it's not like Labor didn't sell anything?  http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Untitled-2.jpg Which Bank? So, where am I wrong? Costello would have sold the assets anyway—and the lack of income from these former public assets is another drag on the Budget.

you are wrong on everything.  every figure is wrong.  you never get anything right or even close.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:39am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:33am: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: This is such a 'dud' argument. Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:36am: They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt If there was no Labor debt there would have been no reason to sell? Besides it's not like Labor didn't sell anything?  http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Untitled-2.jpg Which Bank? So, where am I wrong? Costello would have sold the assets anyway—and the lack of income from these former public assets is another drag on the Budget. you are wrong on everything.  every figure is wrong.  you never get anything right or even close.

Hard to believe they still don't comprehend the simple fact that Labor had ample time and plenty of opportunity to change Howard and Costello's tax cuts if they felt so strongly about them being such a bad thing, yet Swan failed to even TRY to do that.

John Hewson, former Liberal leader, economist and now professor with the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, underlines the point: “The tax cuts Howard and Costello gave are now costing [the budget] about $30 billion a year, and the deficit’s $40 billion.”

Without those cuts and the $9 billion Hockey gave – unasked for and against the will of treasury – to the Reserve Bank, says Hewson, “the deficit problem wouldn’t exist”.

And that’s without including some $40 billion in tax concessions for superannuation, which accrue overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 20 per cent of taxpayers.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:41am:

Hard to believe they still don't comprehend the simple fact that Labor had ample time and plenty of opportunity to change Howard and Costello's tax cuts if they felt so strongly about them being such a bad thing, yet Swan failed to even TRY to do that.

I doubt Abbott has the ticker to right the wrong!

as you sow, so shall you reap

;D ;D ;D

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:47am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:41am: Hard to believe they still don't comprehend the simple fact that Labor had ample time and plenty of opportunity to change Howard and Costello's tax cuts if they felt so strongly about them being such a bad thing, yet Swan failed to even TRY to do that. I doubt Abbott has the ticker to right the wrong! as you sow, so shall you reap ;D ;D ;D

If there was a wrong there to begin with, which there wasn't. Swan was Treasurer during a time when revenue was higher than the best years of Costello, yet Swan's expenses far outstripped that increased revenue. In short, Swan is an incompetent oaf who couldn't balance an empty plate, much less a budget.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:42am:

John Hewson, former Liberal leader, economist and now professor with the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, underlines the point: “The tax cuts Howard and Costello gave are now costing [the budget] about $30 billion a year, and the deficit’s $40 billion.” Without those cuts and the $9 billion Hockey gave – unasked for and against the will of treasury – to the Reserve Bank, says Hewson, “the deficit problem wouldn’t exist”. And that’s without including some $40 billion in tax concessions for superannuation, which accrue overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 20 per cent of taxpayers.

that is rather a simplistic view that typically comes from ivory tower economists.  if you reversed those tax cuts almost everyone would be paying around 20% more tax that presently.  Current take is around $165Bpa in income tax.  to add $30B to it requires increasing income tax by 20%.  so why not increase taxes by 30% instead?  since increasing income tax seems to not have any impact on the economy according to nutters like this why not make it 40%?

it is a basic tenet of economics - or at least real world economics - is that taxes are a drag on economic growth.  they are a necessary evil, but they are an evil just the same.  So the answer is in the balance of keeping them as low as possible yet meeting the legitimate needs of govt.  Raising taxes is a cheats way of temporarily raising more money  but dragging the economy down further. But it is worth noting that cutting expenditure never gets mentioned unless it is about something that affects only the high income earners.

I'd love to see you boofheads explain to low income earners why you are increasing their income tax by 20%.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:47am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:41am: Hard to believe they still don't comprehend the simple fact that Labor had ample time and plenty of opportunity to change Howard and Costello's tax cuts if they felt so strongly about them being such a bad thing, yet Swan failed to even TRY to do that. I doubt Abbott has the ticker to right the wrong! as you sow, so shall you reap ;D ;D ;D

it isn't a 'wrong'.  it is a 'right'.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:33am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: This is such a 'dud' argument. Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:36am: They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt If there was no Labor debt there would have been no reason to sell? Besides it's not like Labor didn't sell anything?  http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Untitled-2.jpg Which Bank? So, where am I wrong? Costello would have sold the assets anyway

Why?


St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:33am:

and the lack of income from these former public assets is another drag on the Budget.

That is true.  So I'll repeat.  Had there been no Labor accumulated debt then asset sales would not have been necessary.

Labor creates the debt with pork barrelling and the Coalition has to sort it out and then cops the political flack for doing so.

It's a political cracked record.... ::)

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 11:05am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:33am: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: This is such a 'dud' argument. Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:36am: They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt If there was no Labor debt there would have been no reason to sell? Besides it's not like Labor didn't sell anything?  http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Untitled-2.jpg Which Bank? So, where am I wrong? Costello would have sold the assets anyway Why? St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:33am: and the lack of income from these former public assets is another drag on the Budget. That is true.  So I'll repeat.  Had there been no Labor accumulated debt then asset sales would not have been necessary. Labor creates the debt with pork barrelling and the Coalition has to sort it out and then cops the political flack for doing so. It's a political cracked record.... ::)

Yep, I don't know of too many people who sell their belongings to pay off debt when they're NOT in debt.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:54am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:47am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:41am: Hard to believe they still don't comprehend the simple fact that Labor had ample time and plenty of opportunity to change Howard and Costello's tax cuts if they felt so strongly about them being such a bad thing, yet Swan failed to even TRY to do that. I doubt Abbott has the ticker to right the wrong! as you sow, so shall you reap ;D ;D ;D If there was a wrong there to begin with, which there wasn't. Swan was Treasurer during a time when revenue was higher than the best years of Costello, yet Swan's expenses far outstripped that increased revenue. In short, Swan is an incompetent oaf who couldn't balance an empty plate, much less a budget.

Revenue was Swan’s and is now Hokey’s problem.

Swan was a great Treasurer who got us the 9As and saw our economy move to be the twelfth largest!

Swan cut huge swathes of Howard’s irresponsible spending out the Budget, Baby Bonus gone, PHR means tested, PS slimmed down with an unending series of efficiency dividends etc. Moves made to remove some of the bigger rorts available only to the super rich—reversed by the Libs! Trying to increase income tax from minority govt—not possible! The minor cost of the Carbon Price caused enough problems but it was done. Bet Hokey wishes he still had the Carbon Price revenue!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 11:08am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:05am: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:33am: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: This is such a 'dud' argument. Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:36am: They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt If there was no Labor debt there would have been no reason to sell? Besides it's not like Labor didn't sell anything?  http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Untitled-2.jpg Which Bank? So, where am I wrong? Costello would have sold the assets anyway Why? St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:33am: and the lack of income from these former public assets is another drag on the Budget. That is true.  So I'll repeat.  Had there been no Labor accumulated debt then asset sales would not have been necessary. Labor creates the debt with pork barrelling and the Coalition has to sort it out and then cops the political flack for doing so. It's a political cracked record.... ::) Yep, I don't know of too many people who sell their belongings to pay off debt when they're NOT in debt.

meet a lib
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/desalination-plants-power-stations-and-ports-part-of-3-billion-fire-sale/story-fnhocxo3-1226881840900

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 11:26am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:54am: Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:47am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:41am: Hard to believe they still don't comprehend the simple fact that Labor had ample time and plenty of opportunity to change Howard and Costello's tax cuts if they felt so strongly about them being such a bad thing, yet Swan failed to even TRY to do that. I doubt Abbott has the ticker to right the wrong! as you sow, so shall you reap ;D ;D ;D If there was a wrong there to begin with, which there wasn't. Swan was Treasurer during a time when revenue was higher than the best years of Costello, yet Swan's expenses far outstripped that increased revenue. In short, Swan is an incompetent oaf who couldn't balance an empty plate, much less a budget. Revenue was Swan’s and is now Hokey’s problem. Swan was a great Treasurer who got us the 9As and saw our economy move to be the twelfth largest! Swan cut huge swathes of Howard’s irresponsible spending out the Budget, Baby Bonus gone, PHR means tested, PS slimmed down with an unending series of efficiency dividends etc. Moves made to remove some of the bigger rorts available only to the super rich—reversed by the Libs! Trying to increase income tax from minority govt—not possible! The minor cost of the Carbon Price caused enough problems but it was done. Bet Hokey wishes he still had the Carbon Price revenue!

you are such a liar.  the PS increased by over 20,000.  Swan INCREASED spending in real terms at every budget.

you just lie about everything.

Link or you are lying, Longy!

If no link I will report your comments on me lying as abuse!

Swag, Costello would have sold those assets anyway—ideology! Neoconservatism, reward your mates with plum pieces of public assets at firesales prices (e.g. CSL sold for $2/share, month later they were at $20/share.

You need to realise the Liberals today are not the preHoward Liberals.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 10:41am:

Hard to believe they still don't comprehend the simple fact that Labor had ample time and plenty of opportunity to change Howard and Costello's tax cuts if they felt so strongly about them being such a bad thing, yet Swan failed to even TRY to do that.

Labor had ample time and plenty of opportunity to change Howard and Costello's tax cuts

A government who increases income tax is soon to be an X government - they won't do it, Tony either.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 11:03am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:42am: John Hewson, former Liberal leader, economist and now professor with the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, underlines the point: “The tax cuts Howard and Costello gave are now costing [the budget] about $30 billion a year, and the deficit’s $40 billion.” Without those cuts and the $9 billion Hockey gave – unasked for and against the will of treasury – to the Reserve Bank, says Hewson, “the deficit problem wouldn’t exist”. And that’s without including some $40 billion in tax concessions for superannuation, which accrue overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 20 per cent of taxpayers. that is rather a simplistic view that typically comes from ivory tower economists.  if you reversed those tax cuts almost everyone would be paying around 20% more tax that presently.  Current take is around $165Bpa in income tax.  to add $30B to it requires increasing income tax by 20%.  so why not increase taxes by 30% instead?  since increasing income tax seems to not have any impact on the economy according to nutters like this why not make it 40%? it is a basic tenet of economics - or at least real world economics - is that taxes are a drag on economic growth.  they are a necessary evil, but they are an evil just the same.  So the answer is in the balance of keeping them as low as possible yet meeting the legitimate needs of govt.  Raising taxes is a cheats way of temporarily raising more money  but dragging the economy down further. But it is worth noting that cutting expenditure never gets mentioned unless it is about something that affects only the high income earners. I'd love to see you boofheads explain to low income earners why you are increasing their income tax by 20%.

Another thing that is a drag on the economy is inequality.  So let's kill 2 birds with one stone: increase taxes at the highest end where you'll reap most reward with minimal economic damage, and stop trying to cut from the bottom 20%.

There you go, problem solved.

Yu
John Smith wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 11:29am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:08am: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:05am: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:33am: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:56am: This is such a 'dud' argument. Labor had plenty of time in office to reverse Howard's tax cuts and Howard's GST? St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:36am: They sold $90Bn of public assets to pay a $70Bn debt If there was no Labor debt there would have been no reason to sell? Besides it's not like Labor didn't sell anything?  http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Untitled-2.jpg Which Bank? So, where am I wrong? Costello would have sold the assets anyway Why? St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:33am: and the lack of income from these former public assets is another drag on the Budget. That is true.  So I'll repeat.  Had there been no Labor accumulated debt then asset sales would not have been necessary. Labor creates the debt with pork barrelling and the Coalition has to sort it out and then cops the political flack for doing so. It's a political cracked record.... ::) Yep, I don't know of too many people who sell their belongings to pay off debt when they're NOT in debt. meet a lib http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/desalination-plants-power-stations-and-ports-part-of-3-billion-fire-sale/story-fnhocxo3-1226881840900

Ask a WA lib voter , that 22 billion is "good debt"  ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 12:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:03am: Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:42am: John Hewson, former Liberal leader, economist and now professor with the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, underlines the point: “The tax cuts Howard and Costello gave are now costing [the budget] about $30 billion a year, and the deficit’s $40 billion.” Without those cuts and the $9 billion Hockey gave – unasked for and against the will of treasury – to the Reserve Bank, says Hewson, “the deficit problem wouldn’t exist”. And that’s without including some $40 billion in tax concessions for superannuation, which accrue overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 20 per cent of taxpayers. that is rather a simplistic view that typically comes from ivory tower economists.  if you reversed those tax cuts almost everyone would be paying around 20% more tax that presently.  Current take is around $165Bpa in income tax.  to add $30B to it requires increasing income tax by 20%.  so why not increase taxes by 30% instead?  since increasing income tax seems to not have any impact on the economy according to nutters like this why not make it 40%? it is a basic tenet of economics - or at least real world economics - is that taxes are a drag on economic growth.  they are a necessary evil, but they are an evil just the same.  So the answer is in the balance of keeping them as low as possible yet meeting the legitimate needs of govt.  Raising taxes is a cheats way of temporarily raising more money  but dragging the economy down further. But it is worth noting that cutting expenditure never gets mentioned unless it is about something that affects only the high income earners. I'd love to see you boofheads explain to low income earners why you are increasing their income tax by 20%. Another thing that is a drag on the economy is inequality.  So let's kill 2 birds with one stone: increase taxes at the highest end where you'll reap most reward with minimal economic damage, and stop trying to cut from the bottom 20%. There you go, problem solved.

That's not equality.  That's targeting a minority. Economic apartheid  :D

Quote:

On its face, the IMF assessment might seem harsh. After all, before they were voted out in 2007, Howard and Costello had delivered six budget surpluses in a row. But they also seriously undermined the structural integrity of the budget by making big spending commitments and giving huge tax cuts, on the basis of a flood of revenue that would inevitably dry up. “You can sum it up in four words,” says Chris Richardson of Deloitte Access Economics. “Temporary boom, permanent promises.” For a period money roared in to the economy, as a result of what was happening in China and elsewhere. According to Richardson, this enormous boom made the government of Howard and Costello look better than it was. “Subsequently we’ve heard the sucking sound as the money’s gone back down the gurgler, which has made Rudd, Gillard and Swan look worse than they were,” he said. “And it’s now making Abbott and Hockey look worse than they are.”

Even more amusing to me was to hear Hockey some months back talking of future tax cuts

Maybe Richardson should run for politics if he has all the answers.  I'm sure the Truebelievers would find a spot for him.

Richardson just said the obvious.

Re the sale of the assets—the 90s recession was over and the debt would have been paid over time anyway, just like the current debt, even with the Libs blowing the debt out, will be paid over time. Just like the debt we had at the end of WWII was paid off.

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 1:16pm:

I'm sure the Truebelievers would find a spot for him

.....stuff knows they need someone with a bit of economic nouse.... :D

The fools havent learnt a thing!


Quote:

But he has dropped some hints, saying earlier this month: ''I would like to be in a position to offer tax cuts in our next term … The whole point of getting the budget under control now is so that we can give tax cuts in the not-too-distant future.'' http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/prepoll-tax-cuts-planned-to-woo-disaffected-voters-20140530-399v1.html

More true of the Libs who only have Robb as someone with economic qualifications. On the Labor side Bowen, Swan and Leigh have qualifications, probably others as well.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 1:26pm:

The fools havent learnt a thing! Quote: But he has dropped some hints, saying earlier this month: ''I would like to be in a position to offer tax cuts in our next term … The whole point of getting the budget under control now is so that we can give tax cuts in the not-too-distant future.'' http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/prepoll-tax-cuts-planned-to-woo-disaffected-voters-20140530-399v1.html

Well done Mr Abbott.  When you reward something you get more of it.

Reward effort and you get more effort.  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Reward bludgers and you just get more bludgers.  :D

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 12:51pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 12:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:03am: Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 10:42am: John Hewson, former Liberal leader, economist and now professor with the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, underlines the point: “The tax cuts Howard and Costello gave are now costing [the budget] about $30 billion a year, and the deficit’s $40 billion.” Without those cuts and the $9 billion Hockey gave – unasked for and against the will of treasury – to the Reserve Bank, says Hewson, “the deficit problem wouldn’t exist”. And that’s without including some $40 billion in tax concessions for superannuation, which accrue overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 20 per cent of taxpayers. that is rather a simplistic view that typically comes from ivory tower economists.  if you reversed those tax cuts almost everyone would be paying around 20% more tax that presently.  Current take is around $165Bpa in income tax.  to add $30B to it requires increasing income tax by 20%.  so why not increase taxes by 30% instead?  since increasing income tax seems to not have any impact on the economy according to nutters like this why not make it 40%? it is a basic tenet of economics - or at least real world economics - is that taxes are a drag on economic growth.  they are a necessary evil, but they are an evil just the same.  So the answer is in the balance of keeping them as low as possible yet meeting the legitimate needs of govt.  Raising taxes is a cheats way of temporarily raising more money  but dragging the economy down further. But it is worth noting that cutting expenditure never gets mentioned unless it is about something that affects only the high income earners. I'd love to see you boofheads explain to low income earners why you are increasing their income tax by 20%. Another thing that is a drag on the economy is inequality.  So let's kill 2 birds with one stone: increase taxes at the highest end where you'll reap most reward with minimal economic damage, and stop trying to cut from the bottom 20%. There you go, problem solved. That's not equality.  That's targeting a minority. Economic apartheid  :D

the minority with majority of the wealth, you mean?

The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax.

Better able to pay you say?

A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 1:50pm:

The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D

The minority that pay the majority of tax because they own the majority of wealth.
And a fitter person generally does work more hours.

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 1:50pm:

The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D

Paying nearly half of your wages in tax is not enough according to piss poor lefties who think we should be taxed even more.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:01pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 1:50pm: The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D The minority that pay the majority of tax because they own the majority of wealth. And a fitter person generally does work more hours.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5222/5596263580_024a673902_z.jpg

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:03pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 1:50pm: The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D Paying nearly half of your wages in tax is not enough according to piss poor lefties who think we should be taxed even more.

I'd be happy if top threshold was 50% of wealth, not just income. :)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:01pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 1:50pm: The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D The minority that pay the majority of tax because they own the majority of wealth.

Income is taxed, not wealth.


sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:01pm:

And a fitter person generally does work more hours.

Not for the same pay and not forced to do so by Govt.

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:01pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 1:50pm: The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D The minority that pay the majority of tax because they own the majority of wealth. Income is taxed, not wealth. sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:01pm:      And a fitter person generally does work more hours. Not for the same pay and not forced to do so by Govt.

So what? we are talking about wealth as the key factor for equality.

And government does by not paying welfare to fit people. At least governments that aren't the Howard government who thought everyone ought to have some welfare.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 1:26pm:

The fools havent learnt a thing! Quote: But he has dropped some hints, saying earlier this month: ''I would like to be in a position to offer tax cuts in our next term … The whole point of getting the budget under control now is so that we can give tax cuts in the not-too-distant future.'' http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/prepoll-tax-cuts-planned-to-woo-disaffected-voters-20140530-399v1.html

Didn't he promise to give tax cuts this term ?

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 1:50pm:

The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D

There is a topic about this phurphy - a place where this post would be on topic.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 11:55am:

Link or you are lying, Longy! If no link I will report your comments on me lying as abuse!

you are a chronic liar.  virtually every 'fact' you post is a lie.  and it isn't my fault you are such a liar.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:01pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 1:50pm: The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D The minority that pay the majority of tax because they own the majority of wealth. Income is taxed, not wealth. sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:01pm:      And a fitter person generally does work more hours. Not for the same pay and not forced to do so by Govt. So what? we are talking about wealth as the key factor for equality. And government does by not paying welfare to fit people. At least governments that aren't the Howard government who thought everyone ought to have some welfare.

your envy of rich people is rather obvious. 

and sad.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:17pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:10pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:01pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 1:50pm: The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D The minority that pay the majority of tax because they own the majority of wealth. Income is taxed, not wealth. sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:01pm:      And a fitter person generally does work more hours. Not for the same pay and not forced to do so by Govt. So what? we are talking about wealth as the key factor for equality. And government does by not paying welfare to fit people. At least governments that aren't the Howard government who thought everyone ought to have some welfare. your envy of rich people is rather obvious.  and sad.

Ah, the envy argument -how cute. It's not envy: it's common sense to target tax where tax can be obtained effectively and efficiently. And fairly. If 60% of wealth in Australia is owned by 5% of Australians than those 5% Australians should be paying 60% of taxation. No?  Isn't that what you conservatives classify as "fair"?

So, while we'll never get a government that starts to properly tax wealth, the one things we can do is rescind the tax cuts on the TOP tax brackets. 

Then we can agree not everyone is "20% worse off", wouldn't you agree?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:04pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:03pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 1:50pm: The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D Paying nearly half of your wages in tax is not enough according to piss poor lefties who think we should be taxed even more. I'd be happy if top threshold was 50% of wealth, not just income. :)

I would be happy if the Liberal Democrats gain power and reduce my income tax to 20%.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:20pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:04pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:03pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 1:50pm: The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D Paying nearly half of your wages in tax is not enough according to piss poor lefties who think we should be taxed even more. I'd be happy if top threshold was 50% of wealth, not just income. :) I would be happy if the Liberal Democrats gain power and reduce my tax to 20%.

A nice notion, until the businesses start begging for infrastructure and a healthy and educated labour force.  Oh well, a smart economy doesn't need those things: it just needs greedy pricks to control the vast amount of wealth, and trickle it down ever so slightly.  Correct?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:15pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:55am: Link or you are lying, Longy! If no link I will report your comments on me lying as abuse! you are a chronic liar.  virtually every 'fact' you post is a lie.  and it isn't my fault you are such a liar.

Abuse reported.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:15pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:55am: Link or you are lying, Longy! If no link I will report your comments on me lying as abuse! you are a chronic liar.  virtually every 'fact' you post is a lie.  and it isn't my fault you are such a liar. Abuse reported.

its not abuse.  you ARE a liar.

lets started with:

Keatings debt was $70B (it was 96B)
healthcare costs are DROPPING (since when??)
FTTH could be had for $20B
FTTN will cost $200B
Howard didn't leave a cash balance (he did)

and more.


you just lie time and time again.  it isn't just being wrong, it is LYING.  no one could make mistakes like the above. They have to be lies.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:34pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:15pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:55am: Link or you are lying, Longy! If no link I will report your comments on me lying as abuse! you are a chronic liar.  virtually every 'fact' you post is a lie.  and it isn't my fault you are such a liar. Abuse reported. its not abuse.  you ARE a liar. lets started with: Keatings debt was $70B (it was 96B) healthcare costs are DROPPING (since when??) FTTH could be had for $20B FTTN will cost $200B Howard didn't leave a cash balance (he did) and more. you just lie time and time again.  it isn't just being wrong, it is LYING.  no one could make mistakes like the above. They have to be lies.

aren't u in SA longie? well, if you are, I hope everything is ok.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:34pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:15pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:55am: Link or you are lying, Longy! If no link I will report your comments on me lying as abuse! you are a chronic liar.  virtually every 'fact' you post is a lie.  and it isn't my fault you are such a liar. Abuse reported. its not abuse.  you ARE a liar. lets started with: Keatings debt was $70B (it was 96B) healthcare costs are DROPPING (since when??) FTTH could be had for $20B FTTN will cost $200B Howard didn't leave a cash balance (he did) and more. you just lie time and time again.  it isn't just being wrong, it is LYING.  no one could make mistakes like the above. They have to be lies. aren't u in SA longie? well, if you are, I hope everything is ok.

Im just waiting for the loons to blame the bushfires on climate change.  After all, a major bushfire in the middle of summer after a few wet seasons could only be the result of global warming.  We never had them before 1990.

Just be nice to get some heavy rain to help out. But according to Tim Flannery, we aren't getting any more, every again.

bushfires suck.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:55pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:34pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:15pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:55am: Link or you are lying, Longy! If no link I will report your comments on me lying as abuse! you are a chronic liar.  virtually every 'fact' you post is a lie.  and it isn't my fault you are such a liar. Abuse reported. its not abuse.  you ARE a liar. lets started with: Keatings debt was $70B (it was 96B) healthcare costs are DROPPING (since when??) FTTH could be had for $20B FTTN will cost $200B Howard didn't leave a cash balance (he did) and more. you just lie time and time again.  it isn't just being wrong, it is LYING.  no one could make mistakes like the above. They have to be lies. aren't u in SA longie? well, if you are, I hope everything is ok. Im just waiting for the loons to blame the bushfires on climate change.  After all, a major bushfire in the middle of summer after a few wet seasons could only be the result of global warming.  We never had them before 1990. Just be nice to get some heavy rain to help out. But according to Tim Flannery, we aren't getting any more, every again. bushfires suck.

well, just stay safe.

No need to go smacking overboard!

Its only Longie!

Pretty soon he will think people like him!

;D ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 3:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:55pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:34pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:15pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 11:55am: Link or you are lying, Longy! If no link I will report your comments on me lying as abuse! you are a chronic liar.  virtually every 'fact' you post is a lie.  and it isn't my fault you are such a liar. Abuse reported. its not abuse.  you ARE a liar. lets started with: Keatings debt was $70B (it was 96B) healthcare costs are DROPPING (since when??) FTTH could be had for $20B FTTN will cost $200B Howard didn't leave a cash balance (he did) and more. you just lie time and time again.  it isn't just being wrong, it is LYING.  no one could make mistakes like the above. They have to be lies. aren't u in SA longie? well, if you are, I hope everything is ok. Im just waiting for the loons to blame the bushfires on climate change.  After all, a major bushfire in the middle of summer after a few wet seasons could only be the result of global warming.  We never had them before 1990. Just be nice to get some heavy rain to help out. But according to Tim Flannery, we aren't getting any more, every again. bushfires suck. well, just stay safe.

I'm inner city here. you can smell the smoke and the winds have just whipped up.  as long as it brings some rain it is okay.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 9:42am:

Bam wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 9:31am: I've been saying for a while now that Costello's biggest mistake as Treasurer was funding permanent budget measures out of temporary revenue. Costello had better options, some examples: * invest in infrastructure, perhaps by creating an infrastructure fund * put the proceeds into the Future Fund * buy back outstanding government bonds These are examples of temporary expenditure that offer a benefit to the country and where spending can be stopped without causing political pain. Costello did none of these things. Instead, he cut taxes and ramped up middle class welfare. The massive expansion of middle class welfare under the Howard government was their worst legacy, and it's going to take some years to unravel this waste. Cutting taxes was also a poor decision. this is a trick question. Are you in favour of automatic tax indexation? You know what I am leading to so it will be interesting to see what you reply with - if you reply at all.

Not relevant to my point.

Costello's middle class welfare was a waste of money that was mostly spent in election years to buy votes.

The tax cuts that Costello made overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, with token measures at best for people on more modest incomes.

That is the Liberal party way - when tax cuts are handed out, it's tokenism for low incomes (sandwich and a milkshake, not even enough to counter years of bracket creep), and massive largesse for the rich; when budget tightening is necessary, it's savage attacks on the poor and token measures for the rich. Don't even try to deny it, it's true.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 3:42pm:

I'm inner city here. you can smell the smoke and the winds have just whipped up.  as long as it brings some rain it is okay.

Remember to get something to eat early.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2015 at 11:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 3:42pm: I'm inner city here. you can smell the smoke and the winds have just whipped up.  as long as it brings some rain it is okay. Remember to get something to eat early.

"Let them him eat cake"  ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2015 at 11:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 3:42pm: I'm inner city here. you can smell the smoke and the winds have just whipped up.  as long as it brings some rain it is okay. Remember to get something to eat early.

not today he won't, it's SUnday, no one opens on Sunday, they can't afford the penalty rates  :D :D :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 4^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4th, 2015 at 11:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 3:42pm: I'm inner city here. you can smell the smoke and the winds have just whipped up.  as long as it brings some rain it is okay. Remember to get something to eat early. not today he won't, it's SUnday, no one opens on Sunday, they can't afford the penalty rates  :D :D :D :D :D :D

Welcome to the 21st century Jonathon.  :D

Swagman wrote on Jan 4^th, 2015 at 7:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 4th, 2015 at 3:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 4th, 2015 at 11:07am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 3:42pm: I'm inner city here. you can smell the smoke and the winds have just whipped up.  as long as it brings some rain it is okay. Remember to get something to eat early. not today he won't, it's SUnday, no one opens on Sunday, they can't afford the penalty rates  :D :D :D :D :D :D Welcome to the 21st century Jonathon.  :D

you know the old saying 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink ' ... longies that horse ... How long will it take you to find an open restaurant tonight Swag? If you struggle I can recommend some. (is the German club still going? thyey had great snitzel)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 8:39am:

wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:22am: The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)    Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes!

Shame on Howard as treasurer for contributing to that debt - about 40% of the debt was his responsibility.

Howard was the worst treasurer in our history and was an economic illiterate.

Costello got lucky with the resources boom - which we pissed away on tax cuts and handouts.

Swagman wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 2:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 2:01pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 1:50pm: The minority that (already and increasingly) pay the majority of tax. Better able to pay you say? A bit like proposing young people are fitter and more able to work longer hours so they should work 60 hour weeks instead of 40 for the same pay  :D The minority that pay the majority of tax because they own the majority of wealth. Income is taxed, not wealth. .

The primary reason that most wealthy people have low incomes.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 8:39am:

wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:22am: The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)    Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes!

This topic is about the fact that apart for the good things that Costello achieved that Howard and Costello in the end managed to leave the Australian economy structured in a manner doomed to failure in anything but a very high growth period, they had doomed the economy to high debt in any economic downturn.

They got the strategy wrong because of the belief that the good times would last forever.

This position is the major driver that has made Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Hockey and Abbott look very bad on economics.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2015 at 8:12am:

All a leftie conspiracy I suppose Longie?

And that’s without including some $40 billion in tax concessions for superannuation, which accrue overwhelmingly to the wealthiest 20 per cent of taxpayers.
But even Labor will not touch the super tax concessions.
The super industry is just another millionairs factory.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 11:09am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:39am: wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:22am: The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)    Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes! Shame on Howard as treasurer for contributing to that debt - about 40% of the debt was his responsibility. Howard was the worst treasurer in our history and was an economic illiterate. Costello got lucky with the resources boom - which we pissed away on tax cuts and handouts.

no he wasn't. he was responsible for less than 10%.

but we all know how lefties count.... IDEOLOGICALLY

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 11:20am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:39am: wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:22am: The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)    Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes! This topic is about the fact that apart for the good things that Costello achieved that Howard and Costello in the end managed to leave the Australian economy structured in a manner doomed to failure in anything but a very high growth period, they had doomed the economy to high debt in any economic downturn. They got the strategy wrong because of the belief that the good times would last forever. This position is the major driver that has made Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Hockey and Abbott look very bad on economics.

you could always cut spending.  but no.... labor opposes that.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 3:31pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 11:20am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:39am: wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:22am: The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)    Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes! This topic is about the fact that apart for the good things that Costello achieved that Howard and Costello in the end managed to leave the Australian economy structured in a manner doomed to failure in anything but a very high growth period, they had doomed the economy to high debt in any economic downturn. They got the strategy wrong because of the belief that the good times would last forever. This position is the major driver that has made Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Hockey and Abbott look very bad on economics. you could always cut spending.

tell Abbott

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 3:31pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 11:20am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:39am: wrote on Jan 3rd, 2015 at 8:22am: The Howard government have had their time.  They are now where they belong.  In the rubbish bin of history.  With their workchoices.      :)    Yes, shame on Howard and Costello for paying off Keatings' debt and leaving office with a string of surpluses and billions in the bank. It'd have been much better that they didn't have a single surplus, ran up a debt nearing half a trillion dollars and deterred investment by introducing carbon and mining taxes! This topic is about the fact that apart for the good things that Costello achieved that Howard and Costello in the end managed to leave the Australian economy structured in a manner doomed to failure in anything but a very high growth period, they had doomed the economy to high debt in any economic downturn. They got the strategy wrong because of the belief that the good times would last forever. This position is the major driver that has made Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Hockey and Abbott look very bad on economics. you could always cut spending.  but no.... labor opposes that.

Labor cut spending in every budget except for the GFC incentive spending.

The Abbott governments uncontrolled spending has been a major feature of their term in government to this point.