The Federal Budget Surplus

[Slax]

I've had to correct you on this so many times already the target is for a 1% of GDP surplus by 10 years. They haven't made a timeline promise for a surplus but they are aiming to achieve a surplus quicker then the ALP which is promising one in 2016/17. A 2 billion surplus whatever the paper thin number is that the ALP are forecasting isn't 1% of GDP.

Abbott and Hockey know that people won't remember the promise in 10 years time that's why they are saying it. Abbott and Hockey have absolutely no fiscal credentials at all. The more I see of statements from Hockey the more I think that he is a walking disaster and will send this country back faster than Swan did.

Either way you've got a choice between the incompitancy of the ALP of the blatant lies of the Coalition, we're screwed either way.

 

[tazzietiger]

Either way you've got a choice between the incompitancy of the ALP of the blatant lies of the Coalition, we're screwed either way.

I think its to early to judge Hockey. I will judge him on how he performs if the coalition win government. I think the main difference between the party's on budgets is that the Liberals will strive for a surplus more strongly then the ALP will.

 

[Slax]

I think its to early to judge Hockey. I will judge him on how he performs if the coalition win government. I think the main difference between the party's on budgets is that the Liberals will strive for a surplus more strongly then the ALP will.

With neither side promising to do an overhaul of the tax system it will become virtually impossible to deliver a surplus. The notion the coalition runs at a surplus is by one built by Costello, Howard never ran one as Treasurer and I have no doubt Hockey won't be able too either. We have a politicial system which means people only care about votes and until we get back to having at least 4 year terms nothing will change.

 

[tazzietiger]

With neither side promising to do an overhaul of the tax system it will become virtually impossible to deliver a surplus. The notion the coalition runs at a surplus is by one built by Costello, Howard never ran one as Treasurer and I have no doubt Hockey won't be able too either. We have a politicial system which means people only care about votes and until we get back to having at least 4 year terms nothing will change.

One of the ALP's big mistakes was picking one part of a recommendation out of the Henry tax review and throwing the rest out. Whether the liberals will make the same mistake with their tax review recommendations only time will tell.

 

[ralphmalph]

Did you comprehend the original post? It said the Libs could not have done that.

A) the policies arose from the Campbell Report
B) they voted in favour

That is not cheerleading.

That is simply stating the facts.

Who gives a s**t who commissioned the inquiry Meds? Cheerleaders
Voting in favour is commendable but hardly the same as expending the political capital to push it through.

 

[yibbida]

I've had to correct you on this so many times already the target is for a 1% of GDP surplus by 10 years. They haven't made a timeline promise for a surplus

Yes they have. It was the 1st year of being elected. Then it was the end of the 1st term of government. Now it is an unknown time.

But they WILL have 1% GDP surplus in 10 years.

 

[DeanoT]

But the ALP WILL have a surplus in 2016/17. Rolled gold, guarantee.

 

[yibbida]

But the ALP WILL have a surplus in 2016/17. Rolled gold, guarantee.

Contrary to what Abbott and Hockey would have you believe, there is no guarantees in forecasting.

The real issue here is the hypocrisy of the Coalition. And you guys fell for it. It's like Abbott is Hird and the conservatives that post in here are Essendon* supporters.

 

[DeanoT]

Contrary to what Abbott and Hockey would have you believe, there is no guarantees in forecasting.

The real issue here is the hypocrisy of the Coalition. And you guys fell for it. It's like Abbott is Hird and the conservatives that post in here are Essendon* supporters.

Gillard and Swan gave a guarantee about a surplus in 2012-13.

 

[Slax]

One of the ALP's big mistakes was picking one part of a recommendation out of the Henry tax review and throwing the rest out. Whether the liberals will make the same mistake with their tax review recommendations only time will tell.

Doubt it, the general public get nervous when you talk about complete tax overhaul as they automatically think it will cost them money, regardless of what the truth is. Tax reform is not a vote winner unless the words tax cut appear somewhere.

 

[medusala]

Voting in favour is commendable but hardly the same as expending the political capital to push it through.

There isn't much political capital spent when the opposition supports it ie it was easy for Rudd/Gillard to change tack re asylum seekers. Keating wanted (and has been in denial ever since) a GST but backed down under union pressure.

The hard stuff is when you plough on against great opposition. That is why Thatcher will always be remembered by history whereas Keating was simply coasting along on her coat tails.

Contrary to what Abbott and Hockey would have you believe, there is no guarantees in forecasting.

You can pretty well guarantee Treasury will be wrong. They must take a decent slug of the blame for the stupidity of the last few years.

Go hard go households. Nice one Kenny boy. Up there with your abacus work on the mining tax. If he had a job in the real world he would have been shown the door very quickly.

 

[ralphmalph]

There isn't much political capital spent when the opposition supports it ie it was easy for Rudd/Gillard to change tack re asylum seekers. Keating wanted (and has been in denial ever since) a GST but backed down under union pressure.

The hard stuff is when you plough on against great opposition. That is why Thatcher will always be remembered by history whereas Keating was simply coasting along on her coat tails.

Oh * off. You wanted to give credit to Howard and Fraser (although no doubt you've disowned him) for undertaking certain reforms because they commissioned an inquiry that recommended some reforms. * off. Give credit where it is due. Another govt actually did what that report recommended and the govt that had Howard as treasurer failed to do so. You can leave your Thatcher love jiz somewhere else. She was not the architect of Australian financial services reform.

 

[medusala]

Oh **** off. You wanted to give credit to Howard and Fraser (although no doubt you've disowned him) for undertaking certain reforms because they commissioned an inquiry that recommended some reforms.

Noone is giving credit to Fraser for anything (well maybe sec 45d)

Give credit where it is due.

Have repeatedly said Keating did plenty of good work as treasure. Noone is denying that.

 

[yibbida]

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/austr...ouve-got-it-20130901-2sytb.html#ixzz2dedtyA2L

Australia may have successfully dodged the global crisis, but some politicians seem to have missed the lessons it taught the rest of the world. In this election, the conservative side of politics has foreshadowed substantial cuts to the government budget. This would be a grave mistake, especially now.

Recent experience around the world suggests that austerity can have devastating consequences, and especially so for fragile economies. Government cuts have helped push Britain, Spain and Greece's economies deeper into recession and led to widespread public misery.

The youth unemployment rate in Spain is above 50 per cent and the figure for Greece is above 60 per cent. Their tragic experience should be a warning to the world. But even seemingly healthy Germany was pushed into a recession from which it is just now emerging - but it is an economy that is still weaker than it was before taking the "dose" of austerity.

Proponents of austerity ignore the fact that national debt is only one side of a country's balance sheet. We have to look at assets - investments - as well as liabilities. Cutting back on high-return investments just to reduce the deficit is misguided. If we are concerned with long-run prosperity, then focusing on debt alone is particularly foolish because the higher growth resulting from these public investments will generate more tax revenue and help to improve the long-term fiscal position.

Proposals for substantial budget cuts seem particularly misplaced at this time given that Australia's economy is confronting new global challenges. Commodity prices are softening and growth is slowing in many key export markets. Australia is already facing declining mining investment. The slowdown in economic growth is not the result of flaws in government policy, but of an adverse external environment. It would be a crime to compound these problems with domestic policy mistakes.

Sharp cuts to public spending over the next few years will exacerbate these challenges. Withdrawing government spending as the economy weakens risks tipping Australia into recession and increasing unemployment.

Assuming standard multipliers, cutting public spending by $70 billion from an economy the size of Australia's over a four-year period could reduce GDP growth by around 2 per cent and cost up to 90,000 jobs.

Instead of focusing mindlessly on cuts, Australia should instead seize the opportunity afforded by low global interest rates to make prudent public investments in education, infrastructure and technology that will deliver a high rate of return, stimulate private investment and allow businesses to flourish.

Joseph Stiglitz is a professor of economics at Columbia University and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics.

Australia is going to be discussed in Economics and political text books for years to come, partly because of our response the GFC, but more for the fact we appear about to commit economic suicide because of the "debt monster" Abbott created.

Instead of having a sensible economic discussion about how to capitalize on our current position, the debate about the economic management of the country has been turned into a circus of coalition slogans deliberately trying to confuse the electorate about gross debt and net debt.

 

[tazzietiger]

In the end the budget that Swan and the ALP promised hundreds would be in surplus came in at a 18.8 billion deficit.

The final budget outcome for the 2012/13 financial year was a deficit of $18.8 billion, federal government data released on Friday shows.
'Today's final budget outcome confirms the deteriorating state of the budget under six years of Labor,' Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said in a joint statement.
'The challenge for the next three years is to rebuild the public's trust in the government's finances through prudent management of taxpayers' money and careful and responsible governance.'
In 2011/12, the budget deficit was $43.7 billion.

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=909928

 

[Relativity]

In the end the budget that Swan and the ALP promised hundreds would be in surplus came in at a 18.8 billion deficit.

Hey, it's only an extra half a billion dollars in interest payments a year. The resource tax would have covered that.

 

[JRoo]

In the end the budget that Swan and the ALP promised hundreds would be in surplus came in at a 18.8 billion deficit.

Thankfully Abbott and Hockey have undertaken drastic economic policy changes that will see them replicate 99.5% of the 4 year forward estimate proposed budgets in the forward estimates due to the economic/debt crisis they told us about in opposition!

 

[yibbida]

You're right


$19B this year and $29B for the following two years

Mind you, let's revisit in 12 months time. I would suggest the $19B will blow out beyond $25B and the $29B will blow out beyond $40B.

With Hockey in charge you are likely to be correct

 

[yibbida]

Why is it too late? Why the addiction to spending?

As for the credit agencies, they can GAGF, their valuations are not worth the paper they are written on.

Be interesting to return to this topic in 5 years and see if we have had any surplus budgets.

Be interesting in 1 year....

 

[yibbida]

7.30 Report tonight was pretty amusing, with a trip down memory lane with Swan and Gillard about those mythical budget surpluses. Also showed how revenue has recovered, but govt spending is out of control.

Should be easy for Hockey to deliver that surplus in year 1 then..

 

[noddy]

All i can say is that our so-called BF right wing financial experts must feeling a touch silly this morning.

 

[Power Raid]

All i can say is that our so-called BF right wing financial experts must feeling a touch silly this morning.

missed it. was hockey f'ing up and interview?

 

[yibbida]

I think its to early to judge Hockey. I will judge him on how he performs if the coalition win government. I think the main difference between the party's on budgets is that the Liberals will strive for a surplus more strongly then the ALP will.

LOL. 111ty % wrong.

 

[Moo]

Basically if we can't fund it off the back of a resources boom, low unemployment, good agriculture returns and growing population - how do we do it if any of these factors give?

Good to know the answer is we don't fund it, we lend it.