Julia's Reign

[chief]

My main problem with the Gillard Govt, is certainly the expenditure. Not so much the taxing.

Costello's last years of treasurer were fantastic, he was building funds for the future. Rudd then raided them all for his idiotic revolutions. I tell you right now, this GP Super Clinic/Health Revolution is a load of shit. I'm frustrated Gillard is continuing with it. Why put money to clinics when our hospitals aren't anywhere near where they could be.

The computer in schools issue, that's a Billion dollars of waste right there, stupid investment, and I would ditch it right away, once again this is Rudd's idea back in 07 before Gillard was Education Minister, it was an idiotic idea then and it remains so now.

I don't want to get in an argument for the mining tax, but I support it and I know others don't. The money from that shouldn't go to fixing the budget, it should simply go to a future fund, and it should be put to a referendum, that we cannot access it, without the use of a referendum. So a shitty PM like Rudd can't go around raiding it. Rudd's problem was that, he didn't listen to anyone, just him and his little chief of staff. From what I heard he barely listened to Gillard, and Tanner. It was a mistake replacing Rudd with Beazley, as I think Beazley would have won the election (somehow!). Beazley's gone, but I think there needs to be a reshuffle, with Stephen Smith moved to Treasurer even though it's impossible as it would cause for Swan for a by-election. Smith would connect with the miners, and WA voters at the same time.

Being said, had the Coalition won the election, there would have been serious problems as their costings were billions of dollars off.

Being said, Abbott's a fruit cake with no substance, and no policies. Let's face it the flood levy was necessary. Now that their is a cyclone heading up north, let's hope Gillard has the sense, not to add a higher levy, but to cut useless programs like GP Super Clinics.

Man I just hated Kevin Rudd's policies so much. I still laugh at how he calls himself a fiscal conservative. What a tool.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

A very interesting op-ed from John Black in the AFR today about people of my generation (X) as the kids of Boomers getting crapped off with being slugged with taxes for which we receive little benefit. In other words, being increasingly asked to stick our hands in our pockets to pay for things like middle class welfare and automotive industry subsidies. I don't totally agree, but he makes an interesting thesis. Black is an ex-ALP pollie, BTW.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

And I agree with you in the main, Chief. The only place where I part company is the levy. As I said earlier, I think there is plenty that can be cut from the budget to pay for reconstruction without stampeding straight to an additional tax. I have a worry that this government is going to bankrupt us through their sheer ineptitude.

 

[stoff]

I am not great on political theory, but I can see a resource rent tax as being part of harnessing the wealth created from our natural resources to ensure there is money there for infrastructure etc, although I would have thought that the licence fees for harvesting should be the vehicle. Super profit taxes on banks, to me, is a socialist attack on big business. Its (possibly) the banks and miners today, but where does it stop? I would be interested to know what sort of profit on turnover the 'super profit' companies are making. Big profit doesn't equal big return necessarily.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I am not great on political theory, but I can see a resource rent tax as being part of harnessing the wealth created from our natural resources to ensure there is money there for infrastructure etc, although I would have thought that the licence fees for harvesting should be the vehicle. Super profit taxes on banks, to me, is a socialist attack on big business. Its (possibly) the banks and miners today, but where does it stop? I would be interested to know what sort of profit on turnover the 'super profit' companies are making. Big profit doesn't equal big return necessarily.

That is one of the key reasons why I am against these super profits taxes.

 

[liquor box]

That is one of the key reasons why I am against these super profits taxes.

the reason I am against these taxes is that they are generally unfair. People look at the actual dollar figure and think it must be a great business model. If you look at how much it must cost to build/rent buy computer, trucks, uniforms, equipment etc etc then the return is not always as good as it looks.

The first time a bank in Australia made a $1b profit there was an article in the paper that compared this to any other business and it worked out to be the equivilent of buying a business and its equipment for $100000 and only making a $1000 profit.

I have also read that companies like Qantas would make more money by selling their assests and investing it in a term deposit as they are around 6% profit when you include the value of all of their assets.

 

[liquor box]

Being said, Abbott's a fruit cake with no substance, and no policies. Let's face it the flood levy was necessary. Now that their is a cyclone heading up north, let's hope Gillard has the sense, not to add a higher levy, but to cut useless programs like GP Super Clinics.

.

Gillard said that the tax is for the QLD floods, so it cant be used for Cyclone relief or in other states. It is a very narrow minded idea.

I agree with Tony Windsor and Nick Xenaphon that it should be an ongoing tax that saves money for future events anywhere in Australia.

As for cutting programs, the government is so hypocritical it is not funny. Only a few years ago we were hearing how these extreme weather events would be more common in the future and that they were a result of CO2 and climate change. They then introduced policy and spent money to try to reduce the CO2 output (I assume to remedy the situation). We now have a disaster and what things do they cut first??? the policies that are meant to stop them like the cash for clunkers and green rebates.

I wonder if Bob Brown will send a bill to Fijian coal miners to pay for the cyclone?

 

[Ruggo]

[B[/B]

Gillard said that the tax is for the QLD floods, so it cant be used for Cyclone relief or in other states. It is a very narrow minded idea.

I agree with Tony Windsor and Nick Xenaphon that it should be an ongoing tax that saves money for future events anywhere in Australia.

As for cutting programs, the government is so hypocritical it is not funny. Only a few years ago we were hearing how these extreme weather events would be more common in the future and that they were a result of CO2 and climate change. They then introduced policy and spent money to try to reduce the CO2 output (I assume to remedy the situation). We now have a disaster and what things do they cut first??? the policies that are meant to stop them like the cash for clunkers and green rebates.

I wonder if Bob Brown will send a bill to Fijian coal miners to pay for the cyclone?

Completely agree, climate change was meant to be the biggest moral threat of our generations and the government lacked the morality to fight on to back this statment up. That is where I threw Rudd on the scrap heap. My throwing Rudd on the scrap heap in no way transfers to a vote for the coalition as they are worse as they choose to believe that it just don't exist. The alternative PM said himself "climate change is crap". My views on climate change are open but I certainly choose to side with caution as it will be the generations of our children and grandchildren that will suffer the consequences of our actions today. Simple fact is that our disaters are becomming more frequent and more intense and as a consequence are putting more people in harms way.

Who else out their in the voting publice finds it extermely frustrating that one side of the political landscape refuses to spend the peoples money and the other side does not spend the peoples money wisely? :angryfire:

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Just quickly back on to the subject of nuclear power and the federal government's stance on it...

Martin Ferguson has come out in support of it, which I think is a positive development.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...r-nuclear-energy/story-e6frg95f-1225999048036

Old Bob won't be too thrilled, but that in turn makes me a little happy

 

[rugbysmartarse]

My main problem with the Gillard Govt, is certainly the expenditure. Not so much the taxing.

Costello's last years of treasurer were fantastic, he was building funds for the future. Rudd then raided them all for his idiotic revolutions. I tell you right now, this GP Super Clinic/Health Revolution is a load of shit. I'm frustrated Gillard is continuing with it. Why put money to clinics when our hospitals aren't anywhere near where they could be.

I am currently working on one of the GP superclinics, so I feel I can say with complete authority that you are 100% correct. I understand what they want to do in making an alternative treatment facility to stop people with minor issues clogging up hospitals, but in Real World terms, it's not working. If you need proof, the original estimate of 35 Superclinics by 2010 fell short by about 32. Thats right, they built 3 of the fuckers. Why? Because the whole model is based on luring established GPs to ditch their own practices to band together and re start their careers in a larger facility which is (only part) govt funded. So you are asking doctors, many with Zero knowledge of property or development, being asked to stick their hands in their pockets to clse their businsees and start over. What an offer. and for what? to potentially get an upside that their business is co-located with a dentist and rediologist? On one of the now 5 clinics moving forward (see what I did there?) which is the one I am working on, the health minister is pressuring everyone to expend the money, because they need to show that it is being spent.

Ok, OK, blood pressure dropping. Just dont mentioned the BER. Again, could tell you stories to make your skin crawl

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Based on the discussions I've had with Mrs Hornet on the BER project, I just shake my head. She works at our kids school (state primary) and the mismanagement of that whole situation is just breathtaking.

 

[Moses]

How is a super clinic different to a medical centre?
Apart from x-ray vision, obviously

 

[Scotty]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...crisis-20110202-1adrj.html?rand=1296650149718

A good article from Costello on the government response to crisis.

 

[Scotty]

Being said, Abbott's a fruit cake with no substance, and no policies. Let's face it the flood levy was necessary. Now that their is a cyclone heading up north, let's hope Gillard has the sense, not to add a higher levy, but to cut useless programs like GP Super Clinics.

Why is the flood levy necessary? Should we have had a drought levy in 07, a cyclone levy in 06 and 11 and a bush fire levy as well. The piecemeal and short term approach to financial management by this government is very poor. No one knows where the stand from day to day. Yesterday it was a mining tax, today a levy tax and tomorrow it could be a bank tax!

I tell you what, why don't we tax every successful industry, every successful company, every successful individual that have all worked hard to get where they are. Whey don't we give that money to people less deserving, to people that have worked less hard? Sounds like a great idea, doesn't it?

 

[Ash]

Haven't bothered to read a lot of this thread, but agree on the BER screw ups. The government got that so wrong. Sadly, the BER wasn't that bad policy (unlike the terminally stupid insulation rebate scheme), it was just so poorly managed. That being said, yet another part of me is disgusted by business in Australia. We people in Australia think of anything government related as a rort, and duly do our best to rort it too. A lot of outrage over the BER fiasco should also be directed to those assholes in the construction companies ripping us off, as well as the incompetent pollies and pencil pushers letting them get away with it. Where is the ethics in business in Australia?

The other part I saw after only reading a few posts is the comparison to Costello and Howard's time in government. I have major issues with this, as we tend to remember the good, and forget the bad. Thanks to Howard, we had loads of middle class welfare, and loads of pork barrelling (at least Costello liked to give surpluses back to the masses to fight bracket creep, as opposed to buying votes from "Howard's battlers"). Thanks to Costello, we had no spending of government money on national infrastructure, and continued cuts to education during a massively promoted "skills shortage" (how incongruous, eh?). Thanks to both of them, we sold off masses of public assets - which paid off most of the debt from previous governments. They rode massive booms, during which time I think that a syphillitic squirrel could have kept the Australian budget in surplus. Don't forget that Labor had over a $10bn surplus in 07-08 (EDIT: it was $19bn), and had a massive surplus forecast prior to the GFC - and now look at the "prudent" money managers they've (Labor) proven themselves to be.

Although, one of the best things Costello did was the Future Fund, which covers the dodgy practice (as seen in America) of promising generous pensions (or 401Ks), but then not creating a fund for it (that is, funding it from future budgets).

Sometimes I think that I hate all politicians.

 

[Ash]

Why is the flood levy necessary? Should we have had a drought levy in 07, a cyclone levy in 06 and 11 and a bush fire levy as well. The piecemeal and short term approach to financial management by this government is very poor. No one knows where the stand from day to day. Yesterday it was a mining tax, today a levy tax and tomorrow it could be a bank tax!

Is the size of the economic impact any different between the things you just listed? How is a one-off levy to pay off a one-off event such bad policy? Howard and Costello definitely thought it wasn't bad policy. Hence the huge irony in that Costello column.

BTW, the way the levy is set up is a good peice of progressive taxation.

I tell you what, why don't we tax every successful industry, every successful company, every successful individual that have all worked hard to get where they are. Whey don't we give that money to people less deserving, to people that have worked less hard? Sounds like a great idea, doesn't it?

Sounds like you are confused with what happens now with the first sentence of the above. Everyone pays their share of tax in return for the security and services provided by the government.

The second sentence of the above, how is that relevant to the levy at all? The levy is there to fix infrastructure damaged by the storm. It has nothing do with, quote, "giv[ing] that money to people less deserving, to people that have worked less hard".

Please, stop with the slippery slope stuff.

 

[chief]

Why is the flood levy necessary? Should we have had a drought levy in 07, a cyclone levy in 06 and 11 and a bush fire levy as well. The piecemeal and short term approach to financial management by this government is very poor. No one knows where the stand from day to day. Yesterday it was a mining tax, today a levy tax and tomorrow it could be a bank tax!

I tell you what, why don't we tax every successful industry, every successful company, every successful individual that have all worked hard to get where they are. Whey don't we give that money to people less deserving, to people that have worked less hard? Sounds like a great idea, doesn't it?

Scotty I absolutely refuse to get in a debate about a mining tax. And I won't.

The king pin of levies is none other than John Howard. Which no doubt you supported. So when Howard tried to take funding from important services like transportation, Arts, Education, and ensure there was a big surplus, he still taxed us. Not once but about 6 or so times. He had money in the bank yet he still wanted to tax, tax, tax.

I have said there can and should be cuts, but a levy at the same time is a good idea.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Ash, I think one of my big objections to the economic management of the current government is their propensity to hit the panic button the minute something goes slightly wrong. The stimulus during the GFC was the biggest, but also the NBN and now this tax (let's call it for what it is) just smacks of a lack of competence and frankly, ticker. They give the appearance of being a bunch of headless chooks when things get a little tough.

 

[Ash]

Interesting page on past governments' budgets:

http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/overview/html/overview_39.htm

You can see that until the GFC, the Rudd government was similar to Howard and Costello in regards to their spending. Then the GFC hit, and their spending blew out due to the simulus, and the total receipts dropped.

You can also see the impact on the budget due to the 80s and 90s recessions. The % of GDP columns are interesting.

 

[Ash]

TBH; yeah, I think you are quite correct there - about the government panicking. I think that they either don't have the confidence and feel that they must paint this picture of them being great economic managers to the public (as many perceive Howard and Costello to have been), or they let the opposition's attacks get to them (how Abbott can paint himself as a better economic manager after the huge black hole blunder in the election is beyond me, but the government lets him do it). Hence this irrational fear of not returning to surplus by 2012 - 2013.

The government is actually praised for the stimulus by bodies like the IMF, but with the benefit of hindsight we know they went too far and their medium to long term stimulus programs were simply not well thought out or run - the insulation scheme was sheer stupidity, the BER was mismanaged, and I still think that the FHOB was disingenuous (and poor) policy, as was relaxing the FIRB rules. If they had stuck with the $900 grants, a good medium term stimulus project and a well run BER scheme then they would look like great economic managers through the GFC (and surely this still might've looked prudent at the time). But history will say they screwed their stimulus measures, and then continued with the silly schemes like copying the US' "clash for clunkers" when no further stimulus was needed. Not to mention that they didn't have the balls to either dump, or better, delay, their promised tax cuts despite the GFC.