The Budget (1 Viewer)

[monique66]

some people are born with it

Bah, humbug....i used to be good at eco last yr, i keep coming 2nd this yr in every exam and its shitting me so much!!! (btw we have like 11 people )

 

[sunjet]

mmm im 2nd too.. out of a bit more

 

[FD3S-R]

gino u suck at eco

 

[Mandy101]

Actually the tax cuts won't automatically go into consumption... Most people in the high income tax brackets have property investments - the more they're taxed, the more they can negative gear - so logically, since there is a tax cut, the extra money they get per week will likely be saved to go towards their properties, as they won't be able to negative gear as much.

 

[phatic]

claim it: nerdism is appreciated here.. economics isnt nerdy though, just intellectual and sauve

Haha, too true.

 

[Bambul]

Actually the tax cuts won't automatically go into consumption... Most people in the high income tax brackets have property investments - the more they're taxed, the more they can negative gear - so logically, since there is a tax cut, the extra money they get per week will likely be saved to go towards their properties, as they won't be able to negative gear as much.

The better way of saying that is that people on higher incomes have a higher marginal propernsity to save (MPS), so tax cuts to high income earners is more likely to be used as savings than consumption. The argument that the government used for them is that it brought Australia in line with world standards (i.e. most countries have a top marginal rate of about 50%, some higher, some lower, but it usually cuts in between A$100,000-A$200,000).

The "welfare to work" reforms are there to provide incentives to those who aren't working to find work. They lose their benefits if they don't look for work and their benefits are reduced as their income increases (at the rate of something like 40%-60% per extra dollar they earn, depending on which benefit they are on). You should mention something about the Effective Marginal Tax Rate (EMTR), which adds up the tax rate and the loss of welfare benefit. e.g. Those on the dole used to lose the dole at the rate of 60c per dollar of income they earned, then add the tax they paid (approx 17%) and you get 77%. The budget reduced those numbers to 50 and 15, so the EMTR is 65%.

You will have to check those numbers for the EMTR because I'm doing it out of memory.

N.B. I don't necessarilly agree with some of these policies, but that is what I would write about them to get the marks.

 

[monique66]

You can have an opinion, its not like the markers will cut marks out because they don't agree with you. Eco is very political

 

[Haku]

lol, funny to read that u have parties cause its a budget day, must be from a rich school.

but i think eco should be away from politics, as they often lead to personal opinions and other stuff. But insightful statments and stuff like that are cool.

our budget thing we have to pay 2 buks to get the australian new paper, thats 1 week but only one days was useful!!!

 

[azza_3761]

lol, funny to read that u have parties cause its a budget day, must be from a rich school.

but i think eco should be away from politics, as they often lead to personal opinions and other stuff. But insightful statments and stuff like that are cool.

our budget thing we have to pay 2 buks to get the australian new paper, thats 1 week but only one days was useful!!!

u got scammed

 

[Bambul]

You can have an opinion, its not like the markers will cut marks out because they don't agree with you. Eco is very political

I've found that the subject usually teaches slong the line of "support whatever policy the government passes". So the course isn't very critical of the Hawke/Keating economic policies of the 1980s nor of the Howard/Costello economic policies of the 1990s. This is despite the fact that they are sometimes quite different. I would suggest taking a similar approach (i.e. that is what I did in my above post, just mention what they did and give the rational for it, rather than alternative policies).

 

[monique66]

I've found that the subject usually teaches slong the line of "support whatever policy the government passes". So the course isn't very critical of the Hawke/Keating economic policies of the 1980s nor of the Howard/Costello economic policies of the 1990s. This is despite the fact that they are sometimes quite different. I would suggest taking a similar approach (i.e. that is what I did in my above post, just mention what they did and give the rational for it, rather than alternative policies).

But there is nothing to stop you from pointing out the ineffectiveness of the policies in place and alternative strategies that may work. I dunno...i mean don't just say 'this is wrong' back it up with info and evidence and you should be fine. Like, ppl have differing views on globalisation and they won't lose marks because they don't agree with it.

 

[phatic]

If the question is along the lines of "discuss the costs and benefits of globalisation," then you can use both - outline the theoretical advantages of global free trade, then take the real-world negatives and attempt to undermine them. Otherwise they seem to just want you to recite theory - "conservative brainwashing," as my teacher calls it.