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.    

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confirmed a Coalition government would abolish it because it was to be funded by the mining tax, which would be repealed.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

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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


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

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


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

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


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.

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




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?