2006-07 Federal Budget (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

For those who are interested, here's Kim Beazley's reply (follow the pdf link for the full reply, should you be that bored).

Also, here's a piece on Kim Beazley's reply.

 

[pete_mate]

Generally speaking, it appears to be a fairly sound budget... typical of Peter Costello; he certainly has a capable brain on his head.

The superannuation and tax components were positive, as were the investments in the national highway infrastructure programme and the Murray River scheme. Would have like to have seen more infrastructure development programmes, however Peter Costello made a valid point in saying that expenditure should be such that it still allows some recompense for tax payers..

Additionally, he did allude to the fact the government is aware of the vulnerability of the commodity boom, and factored this into the budget equation..

2 billion more on defence? imagine if that went to education, or infastructure.

the government is going to get bitch-slapped in the face when the commodities boom ends. take a look at nsw, it grew 2.3% in the last year,

it only grew at 2.3% because of no investment in broadband and skills and education that create productivity increases. That 2.3%, reflective of a lack of mines in nsw, will be the average for the whole country once the commodities boom ends.

the government has not prepared for this at all, it merely cares about bribing baby boomers with a super tax-cut so that it can be elected next year.

and these tax cuts are a stimulus to the economy and will result in an interest rate rise, if you read any "voodoo economics" the papers say about the need for a tax cut because of petrol prices you are one sad puppy.

i got 96 in hsc ecos

 

[Snaykew]

Actually, if someone is earning in the income bracket where it is 45%, your entire income is not taxed by 45%. Just the part within that tax bracket. You are paying the same as everyone else except in the part where your income is in the next tax bracket. We have a progressive tax system or whatever its called. So if you earn say, 100,000 dollars and the tax bracket starts at 75,000 dollars, from 75,001-100,000 is what gets taxed by 45%. Every other dollar is taxed in their respective brackets. Hope this helps to clear up some confusion.

With the increased defence spending, I welcome that. It allows us to increase ADF capability and effeciency. However, recruitment is quite a problem. Existing ADF personnel numbers will decrease next year I think. But that's just me, I'm pro-military.

 

[frog12986]

2 billion more on defence? imagine if that went to education, or infastructure.

the government is going to get bitch-slapped in the face when the commodities boom ends. take a look at nsw, it grew 2.3% in the last year,

it only grew at 2.3% because of no investment in broadband and skills and education that create productivity increases. That 2.3%, reflective of a lack of mines in nsw, will be the average for the whole country once the commodities boom ends.

the government has not prepared for this at all, it merely cares about bribing baby boomers with a super tax-cut so that it can be elected next year.

and these tax cuts are a stimulus to the economy and will result in an interest rate rise, if you read any "voodoo economics" the papers say about the need for a tax cut because of petrol prices you are one sad puppy.

i got 96 in hsc ecos

That is absolutely fantastic, your parents must be so proud of you.. did you happen to masturbate over your final certificate?

As for your comments about NSW, it works both ways I'm afraid. The slowing of the NSW economy is not primarily due to the lack of commodity interests within the state, but is due to a distinct lack of investment, an overall increase in state taxes, extensive duplicity and a drought of infrastructure development by the NSW state government. Throughout Bob Carr's reign, he was quite happy to take credit for growth and prosperity by attributing it to state investment and the like, however would fob it off to the Federal gov't whenever things looked dim..

Any person who has studied economics will know that expansionary macro policy is of course a stimulus to the economy. This speculation that such moves will instigate inflationary pressure is purely speculative and has been adopted to find holes in the budget, by those who would criticise if there were no tax cuts at all. The fact remains that treasury's forward estimates would take into account a whole range of variables, and to suggest that inflationary pressure and hence interest rate rises are inevitable is ignorant. The government has managed to subdue pressures for over 10 years and would not jeopardise its main policy objective for the sake of needed tax reform..

Peter Costello recognised himself that the commodity boom was not going to continue forever, and reiterated the point that the government had taken such factors into account...

 

[bshoc]

Tax cuts could have waited, if Costello really wanted to help out the middle class he should've directed his precious surplus (which he attained from culling public health, education budgets (in real terms)etc) into a petroleum and public transport subsidy, if he wanted to invest in growth he would have subsidized education. All he's done is given an extra leather lounge to the well off and a chocolate bar to the rest of us.

 

[Snaykew]

My parents earn greater than $150000. The majority of their salary is taxed at 45%.

Thank you for wasting my time, pseudo intellectual.

So how much tax should they pay?

 

[Snaykew]

30% across the board? How much less would the government have to spend? >_>;

 

[liger]

I think the budget was fairly predictable, but it was a disapointment. There's all these little tax cuts here and there to get votes for the next electon, but there's not much in terms of long term planning, development etc (roads are an exception) i think it would be more worthwhile to actually spend some of the surplus on develpoment for the future or go towards paying off some debt etc rather than spending it on a few people in order to work as an election campaign. And whats this i hear about petrol subsidies for rural people ceasing? or was that just my imagination? (hope i am imagining it!)
But despite some of the crap that came out of the budget, i think i was mostly dissapointed by the reaction of the labour party. Both parties seem to be so similar these days, it about time the alp stopped giving piss weak responses









There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

 

[banco55]

I think the budget was fairly predictable, but it was a disapointment. There's all these little tax cuts here and there to get votes for the next electon, but there's not much in terms of long term planning, development etc (roads are an exception) i think it would be more worthwhile to actually spend some of the surplus on develpoment for the future or go towards paying off some debt etc rather than spending it on a few people in order to work as an election campaign. And whats this i hear about petrol subsidies for rural people ceasing? or was that just my imagination? (hope i am imagining it!)
But despite some of the crap that came out of the budget, i think i was mostly dissapointed by the reaction of the labour party. Both parties seem to be so similar these days, it about time the alp stopped giving piss weak responses

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

There is no debt to pay off and they are establishing the "future fund". I'd like to see australia adopt something similiar to the welfare reform they had in the US under Clinton. That would save a lot of money but wont' happen.

 

[Snaykew]

There is no net government debt. They still owe money, but the interest or something or another can pay it off. Or something. *shrugs*

 

[liger]

I think this future fund is partly an excuse to simply get rid of the surplus so the average person won't complain too much about the taxes they're paying. I think its really over rated and there's alot more behind it then simply saving for the bad times or however they want to put it.
I think the welfare reform would be a terrible idea! I don't hink its necessiary to implement in suatralia n the fist place because its not that big of an issue here. I think in the US it was 5 or 6 year limits people had on recieving welfare payments. I think that's really unfare because it's regardless of their situation. Although I do think its very 'Howard government' to simply let the states deal with the problem, like Clintons reforms..but i dont think that would work.











Chuck Norris' smile once brought a puppy back to life

 

[liger]

wow. i said 'i think' alot

 

[banco55]

There is no net government debt. They still owe money, but the interest or something or another can pay it off. Or something. *shrugs*

They've deliberately kept a negligible amount of debt in order to keep the government bond market going.

 

[Rafy]

There is no net government debt. They still owe money, but the interest or something or another can pay it off. Or something. *shrugs*

To expand on that:

1. Some may wonder why there are any net interest payments if there is no net debt. The Commonwealth does borrow through the issue of securities such as 10 year bonds. It does not borrow to finance its activities. It issues these bonds as a result of a deliberate decision to maintain a triple A rated Government securities market to support the pricing efficiency of Australia's financial markets. The interest rate on new bonds is around 5.5 per cent. This Commonwealth also lends. Its largest lending programme is to students through HELP (formerly known as HECS). These are subsidized loans which carry a nominal interest rate fixed to the CPI – around 2.5 per cent. In this way the Commonwealth lends at a lower rate than it borrows – to subsidise students – and can incur a net interest charge. As the Commonwealth improves its net worth its assets will increasingly outstrip liabilities and net interest payments will be eliminated. This is forecast to occur by 2007-08. From that year there will be no net interest payments by the Commonwealth, instead it will receive net interest payments.
(Footnote from a Costello Speech)

 

[elvislives]

yeah, adopting a welfare system similar to clinton's would save money. So would abolishing the public schools system and getting rid of the dole...oh, wait, thats not to far from what u were suggesting. i think if anything our government should pay more attention to real public welfare issues like the pathetic state of our mental health system than to furthering our economy at the cost of humanity.if only we could be more like america, who by the way have one of the largest international debts in the world....

 

[townie]

Costello has made this point every year, and it should be recognised again this year. The numerical amount of the tax-cut should not be sole determinant of the measure of theextent of the cut, but the percentage of the cut to the actual income. Of course a higher income earner will receive higher tax cuts as they pay more tax in the first place..

This whole lower income v higher income earner issue is long outdated...

yes, lets look at percentages, and look at how middle income earners have the lowest percentage, and oh, look at that, at about $65k ish the red line goes up

 

[banco55]

yeah, adopting a welfare system similar to clinton's would save money. So would abolishing the public schools system and getting rid of the dole...oh, wait, thats not to far from what u were suggesting. i think if anything our government should pay more attention to real public welfare issues like the pathetic state of our mental health system than to furthering our economy at the cost of humanity.if only we could be more like america, who by the way have one of the largest international debts in the world....

Last time I checked the US spent more on public schools per student than any other country in the world. If they did cut welfare (including the dole) there'd be more money to spend on things like mental health and public schools.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Budget is fine.
L2P Noob.

 

[michael_77]

Welfare is a necessary section of government spending and is currently being under funded supported by non-profit organisations. The government must cater for all Australians especially those disadvantaged which it is currently not doing.

Also this budget is one for the rich, not for "middle Australia" as Costello mught like us to think. With inceased pertol prices aswell as inflationary pressures that could lead to intrest rate rises, the "working class battlers" are the big losers.

 

[loquasagacious]

yes, lets look at percentages, and look at how middle income earners have the lowest percentage, and oh, look at that, at about $65k ish the red line goes up

Is $65K actually out of the middle-income earning zone though???

And we would do well to note that low-income workers are getting the most.