Australian Politics Forum - The myth of Coalition economic management

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 61825
Here
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #60 - Mar 14^th, 2015 at 11:51pm

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate)

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so.

Not when the surplus is based on an unsustainable income source. Tax cuts are long term reductions in government income. The tax cuts we had were based on the economic boom of the time, as soon as the boom finished income dropped and the same tax cuts previously put in place were no longer affordable.

They had committed to spending money in the future which was never going to be available, this created a structural failure.

The Howard / Rudd tax cuts locked Australia into a future economic disaster.

You can only get away with reducing tax rates in boom periods if you accept that you will need to increase taxes in non boom periods. There are better ways to return excess money which is not reliable into the future withy one off infrastructure spends.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: The myth of Coalition economic management Reply #61 - Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:14am Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:25pm: A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate) not when the surplus comes about because of a temporary boom.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #62 - Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:34am

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 8:07am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 6:38am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit.

Hilarious. So if a government decides it's gas chambers for "progressives" and leftards?

You would be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you.

No. It's a stupid and offensive question based on a hypothetical situation that won't ever happen and is irrelevant to the topic. I don't answer stupid questions.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Grappler Racist Filth

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 90326
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #63 - Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:39am

Bam wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 8:07am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 6:38am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit.

Hilarious. So if a government decides it's gas chambers for "progressives" and leftards?

You would be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you.

No. It's a stupid and offensive question based on a hypothetical situation that won't ever happen and is irrelevant to the topic. I don't answer stupid questions.

Why would we need gas chambers when we socially disadvantage, disempower and criminalise people of s chosen group at whim and at will?

Once so handled they have zero 0ower anyway - even the power to earn and prosper.... let alone change anything that is wrong.....

That, Grasshopper, is why we've always had a savagely distorted law system here..... including tax etc. The principle is the more you can keep down the more you can garner the cream for yourself.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #64 - Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:39am

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Quote:

there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.

The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

And sell off lucrative government assets that deliver a short term gain but thereafter immediately stop delivering income to the government. Just an appallingly stupid thing to do, let alone by someone claiming to have superior economic skills.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #65 - Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:50am

Julius Abbott wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 10:43pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things...

Either they are not spending enough

OR

They are over-taxing.

Or both.

A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics.

Agreed. A surplus is actually a waste of opportunity. It means that there are infrastructure that could be built that is not.

It depends on the size of the surplus. If the Federal government had a small surplus less than 0.1% of GDP, that could simply be a sign of a balanced budget.

Julius Abbott wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 10:43pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation.

Debt is also a waste - a waste of money. Debt comes with interest repayments.

The best scenario is that the government spends exactly what it accrues. Borrowing money should only be done in absolute emergencies.

I disagree. If the price of money is less than the expected return to be gained by investing it, the money should be borrowed and invested.

The 10-year bond rate is currently 2.55% (roughly equal to inflation). After subtracting inflation, the price of government borrowing is essentially zero. At this rate of return, just about any investment that returned a net profit to the economy would be viable. Investing in infrastructure to increase productivity would be beneficial - upgrading roads and rail to relieve congestion hot spots, building the real NBN to relieve internet congestion and so on. Instead we have a Federal government obsessed with debt, paying too much attention to the price while having no concept of value.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #66 - Mar 15^th, 2015 at 10:02am

Dnarever wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 11:51pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate)

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so.

Not when the surplus is based on an unsustainable income source. Tax cuts are long term reductions in government income. The tax cuts we had were based on the economic boom of the time, as soon as the boom finished income dropped and the same tax cuts previously put in place were no longer affordable.

They had committed to spending money in the future which was never going to be available, this created a structural failure.

The Howard / Rudd tax cuts locked Australia into a future economic disaster.

You can only get away with reducing tax rates in boom periods if you accept that you will need to increase taxes in non boom periods. There are better ways to return excess money which is not reliable into the future withy one off infrastructure spends.

Agree - Costello's biggest mistake was introducing permanent funding measures paid for with temporary revenue.

He would have been better off doing one of two things -

1. Investing in infrastructure - as you suggested. However, this would have been a bad idea at the time because this would have stimulated an economy that was already running too hot in some sectors. Quarantining the money in an infrastructure fund may have been better.
2. Placing the money in the Future Fund. Costello created the Future Fund, yet did not place the boom money into it.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Grappler Racist Filth

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 90326
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #67 - Mar 15^th, 2015 at 10:18am

Bam wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 10:02am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 11:51pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate)

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so.

Not when the surplus is based on an unsustainable income source. Tax cuts are long term reductions in government income. The tax cuts we had were based on the economic boom of the time, as soon as the boom finished income dropped and the same tax cuts previously put in place were no longer affordable.

They had committed to spending money in the future which was never going to be available, this created a structural failure.

The Howard / Rudd tax cuts locked Australia into a future economic disaster.

You can only get away with reducing tax rates in boom periods if you accept that you will need to increase taxes in non boom periods. There are better ways to return excess money which is not reliable into the future withy one off infrastructure spends.

Agree - Costello's biggest mistake was introducing permanent funding measures paid for with temporary revenue.

He would have been better off doing one of two things -

1. Investing in infrastructure - as you suggested. However, this would have been a bad idea at the time because this would have stimulated an economy that was already running too hot in some sectors. Quarantining the money in an infrastructure fund may have been better.
2. Placing the money in the Future Fund. Costello created the Future Fund, yet did not place the boom money into it.

Since when did any politician ever make a valid decision on reserving money for any specific purpose?

They all assume that consolidated revenue is just some endless source of funding for their ideology or pet ideas... and it's:-

"Oh - so sorry! Not enough in the till after paying for the Equal Rights of Agitanians to Secure Lucrative Business out of Government Sell-outs - and so forth - to pay for the needed roads, pensions, etc."

Selfish idiots the lot of them.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10300
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #68 - Mar 15^th, 2015 at 10:10pm

Bam wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 8:07am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 6:38am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

Once the government has raised funds, the money belongs to the government to do with as it sees fit.

Hilarious. So if a government decides it's gas chambers for "progressives" and leftards?

You would be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Answer the question. If a government can use the money as it sees fit, then how can you argue against gas chambers for leftards? You didn't think this through, did you.

No. It's a stupid and offensive question based on a hypothetical situation that won't ever happen and is irrelevant to the topic. I don't answer stupid questions.

Just admit that the government cannot do what it wants with tax payers' money.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21097 Perth Gender:	Re: The myth of Coalition economic management Reply #69 - Mar 15^th, 2015 at 10:30pm Another problem for the Abbott Government is getting the fuel excise tax through the Senate...If they fail to pass this legislation then taxpayers will have to repay millions of dollars to big oil companies....Good economics is something this Liberal Government has trashed!!!
Back to top	If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992) IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #70 - Mar 16^th, 2015 at 2:33pm

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Another problem for the Abbott Government is getting the fuel excise tax through the Senate...If they fail to pass this legislation then taxpayers will have to repay millions of dollars to big oil companies....Good economics is something this Liberal Government has trashed!!!

Roll Eyes

If they keep abusing taxpayers' money like this, they should be denied access to that money until the people have a say on the matter.

It is time to block supply and force an election.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: The myth of Coalition economic management Reply #71 - Mar 16^th, 2015 at 2:36pm Anyone got a list of which governments and of what persuasion have created the most surpluses and deficits?
Back to top	IP Logged

Kat Gold Member Offline Socialism IS the answer. Posts: 17709 Everywhere and no-where Gender:	Re: The myth of Coalition economic management Reply #72 - Mar 16^th, 2015 at 4:27pm Grendel wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 2:36pm: Anyone got a list of which governments and of what persuasion have created the most surpluses and deficits? Someone posted that here last week or the week before. The Libs were NOT shown in a good light. At all.
Back to top	IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #73 - Mar 16^th, 2015 at 4:33pm

Kat wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 4:27pm:

Grendel wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 2:36pm:

Anyone got a list of which governments and of what persuasion have created the most surpluses and deficits?

Someone posted that here last week or the week before.

The Libs were NOT shown in a good light.

At all.

Gotta link Kat?

Back to top

IP Logged