freediver
Gold Member
Offline
www.ozpolitic.com
Posts: 47352
At my desk.
|
Brendan Nelson stumbles on $750m blowout
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23711629-5013871,00.html
BRENDAN Nelson's bid to revive his leadership with a strong response to the Rudd Government's first budget crumbled yesterday as he admitted to a $750million blowout in his plan to cut fuel excise.
As Labor seized on the blowout as evidence of Coalition incompetence, Opposition ageing spokeswoman Margaret May incorrectly declared an increase in pensions was Coalition policy, forcing Opposition Treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull to publicly correct her.
The gaffes ended a bad week during which the Opposition Leader and Mr Turnbull struggled to provide a consistent economic message over the need for spending cuts in Tuesday's budget.
On Thursday night, Dr Nelson attempted to reverse his fortunes, delivering a forceful formal budget reply in which he vowed a Coalition government would reduce fuel excise by 5c a litre to 33.14c, improve standards of teacher education and ease capital gains tax on small business.
some interesting letters to the editor:
To cut consumption taxes at this time is short-sighted
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/to_cut_consumption_taxes_at_this_time_is_short_sighted
MOST TALKED ABOUT BUDGET BRAWL
THE current sparring between the federal Government and Opposition over fuel tax is disingenuous ("Nelson fuels budget brawl’’, 16/5).
To deal with the inflation problem, spending must fall. The Rudd Government has done its bit and those with home loans are doing theirs. Consumption taxes are part of the general solution to the problem of excessive demand in the economy. To reduce consumption taxes at this time is expedient and short-sighted. Langford White Rose Park, SA
BRENDAN Nelson made a valiant effort in his reply-to-the-budget speech. How wise the Coalition has become after just six months in opposition. It has an answer for everything, even for things it could not manage in nearly 12 years of government. Imagine how much wiser it will become in a decade or so. Robert Keane Taigum, Qld
IT would seem that Brendan Nelson has finally found some back-bone and emotion in replying to Wayne Swan’s budget. If his heartfelt speech is anything to go by, just maybe Nelson is actually capable of leading the Opposition. Sven Knudsen Acacia Gardens, NSW
BRENDAN Nelson’s plan to cut petrol excise is economically and environmentally senseless. The reason why the price of oil is so high is because people are burning too much and there is not enough supply to meet demand. Total world oil supplies are continually diminishing as it is a non-renewable resource. As such, cutting petrol excise is illogical because it will encourage people to use more, when the real solution is to use less. The way to do that is improve and encourage public transport and to use rail and shipping instead of road for transporting freight. Neither of the major parties seem to have a policy for that. Anna Payne Boronia, Vic
IT’S quite intoxicating to see Brendan Nelson on white charger riding to the rescue of the liquor industry. Once an opponent of alco-pops, he now sees them as the lesser of evils in the battle against binge drinking and therefore taxable at a lower rate. If other alcoholic drinks are even more dangerous, as he asserts, surely the correct strategy would be to bump up the tax on them too. Phil Robins Toorak Garens, SA
I AGREE with Brendan Nelson. The Australian people should not be patronised by incremental payments of the baby bonus.
I’m sure he’ll extend this principle to business activity statements and pay-as-you-earn income tax when the Liberals are next in government and abolish them. Jennie Connell Milton, Qld
BRENDAN Nelson is in opposition, not government, so who cares if he is promising to end the drought, reduce petrol prices and proclaim Souths as NRL premiers? I don’t. The Coalition lost, Labor won. End of story. Graeme Rankin Holder, ACT
WILL someone please tell Brendan Nelson that Labor’s plan to increase the income threshhold at which the Medicare surcharge is payable is a tax decrease, not an increase? Bob Clarke Adelaide, SA
A COUPLE of years ago, my private health insurer wrote to me to advise that, due to an influx of new members, premiums would have to rise, and they did. Now I’m being told by all and sundry that there will be a decline in private health numbers because of the raising of the income threshold for the Medicare surcharge, and this decline will lead to increased private health premiums. Can somebody please explain? Peter Jones
THE fact that so many people are expected to ditch private health cover as a direct consequence of the new Medicare levy surcharge thresholds reveals just how grossly distorting and unfair the system actually was.
Every July 1, for a decade, John Howard drip-fed new policyholders to the private health funds by stubbornly refusing to address bracket creep. Yet insurers now threaten to raise premiums because young and healthy people - who never wanted their policies in the first place - will walk away.
Does anyone recall the funds reducing premiums when the same young and healthy people signed-up for private health, thereby diluting the proportion of older, higher-risk members? No, quite the opposite, we were forced to wear the higher premiums, well above CPI, year after year, and had no choice but to pay up or pay the surcharge.
|