What do you think wil happen on the 2014 Budget Night?

[pazza]

Shrek will put everyone to sleep.

 

[Belnakor]

As bad? Or as good ie more public servants sacked.

i don't think hockey has the balls to sack public servants, at worst he'd do a hiring freeze.

 

[Power Raid]

One of the howard era's lasting legacies. And now both sides are too gutless to get rid of it.

I understand that the federal government has to return the surplus back to the states. As the libs had paid off the debt, had insufficient future liabilities and a surplus they had a choice of paying the money to the states or pork barreling the middle class and eating into labors traditional handout supporter base.

The choice for Howard was simple, wrong in my mind but simple. This bought him the time to get some reforms through, provide a period of consolidation after the great nation modernisation of Keating and could have been worth it if he got his IR reforms through but he was beaten by Kevin "s**t iceberg" Rudd and failed by toothless Costello.

 

[Belnakor]

He should have used it to build infrastructure instead of rolling out a pork barrel. Its not like he even needed to do it in 2004.

 

[tandino]

I understand that the federal government has to return the surplus back to the states.

That's not correct, as far as I am aware.

I always thought that's what the Future Fund was for.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Power Raid is simply playing his usual defend the Liberals game.

He knows full well that he is talking nonsense.

 

[Power Raid]

That's not correct, as far as I am aware.

I always thought that's what the Future Fund was for.

the future fund is offset by the liability of government pensions and superannuation commitments (ie my military super does not exist other than a piece of paper with an IOU on it)

 

[Power Raid]

Power Raid is simply playing his usual defend the Liberals game.

He knows full well that he is talking nonsense.

that's an amazing response given I am not liberal or voted liberal in my life

i have preferred many of labor's policies but have been anti- labor's roll out and execution of their policies. It also happens that many of labor agree with me on this position.

 

[JRoo]

I understand that the federal government has to return the surplus back to the states. As the libs had paid off the debt, had insufficient future liabilities and a surplus they had a choice of paying the money to the states or pork barreling the middle class and eating into labors traditional handout supporter base.

The choice for Howard was simple, wrong in my mind but simple. This bought him the time to get some reforms through, provide a period of consolidation after the great nation modernisation of Keating and could have been worth it if he got his IR reforms through but he was beaten by Kevin "s**t iceberg" Rudd and failed by toothless Costello.

I understand that the federal government has to return the surplus back to the states.

Based upon what?

As the libs had paid off the debt,

They had about $60 billion in outstanding securities not including their unfunded superannuation.

had insufficient future liabilities and a surplus they had a choice of paying the money to the states or pork barreling the middle class and eating into labors traditional handout supporter base.

Costello have multiple choices in regards what to do with the surpluses once NET DEBT had been paid off. More ongoing middle class welfare, directly funding their employees super funds such as the MSBS which in 2004 had an outstanding liability of approximately $90 billion, using them to invest in infrastructure, major nation changing taxation reform or setting up the Future Fund. Unfortunately he picked the Future Fund.

The choice for Howard was simple, wrong in my mind but simple. This bought him the time to get some reforms through, provide a period of consolidation after the great nation modernisation of Keating and could have been worth it if he got his IR reforms through but he was beaten by Kevin "s**t iceberg" Rudd and failed by toothless Costello

Howard post 2000 took his foot off the economic reform accelerator and coasted along using the surpluses to pork barrel his way back into being elected.

 

[Slax]

I understand that the federal government has to return the surplus back to the states. As the libs had paid off the debt, had insufficient future liabilities and a surplus they had a choice of paying the money to the states or pork barreling the middle class and eating into labors traditional handout supporter base.

Which is why the second half of the Howard/Costello era was filled with complete and utter waste leaving no tangible legacy to the country when they had the potential to set this country up for future generation. Costello was an ordinary Treasurer who just happened by chance to be at the helm during an extended boom period, nothing more.

As for Budget night, has been a complete yawn session since Keating stopped being Treasurer. Any sufferer from insomnia is recommended to watch it as it will work better than the pills your doctor prescribed.

 

[Jascave]

Here's an interesting thought.

Remember back in 2004 John Howard made his Athens statement, saying he'll be PM for as long as he wanted, thereby shutting down any hopes Peter Costello had of succeeding him.

What would happen (around the period 2005-07) if Costello did 'a Keating' and challenged Howard for the Liberal leadership/Prime Minister-would Costello have had the numbers to defeat Howard?

 

[Smiling Buddha]

What would happen (around the period 2005-07) if Costello did 'a Keating' and challenged Howard for the Liberal leadership/Prime Minister-would Costello have had the numbers to defeat Howard?

Popular opinion is that Costello never had the numbers and this is why he never challenged.

Ergo, had Costello decided to challenge Howard, he would have lost, and we still would have had a pork-barreling Howard as PM until 2007 - sans Costello as Treasurer.

 

[JRoo]

Here's an interesting thought.

Remember back in 2004 John Howard made his Athens statement, saying he'll be PM for as long as he wanted, thereby shutting down any hopes Peter Costello had of succeeding him.

What would happen (around the period 2005-07) if Costello did 'a Keating' and challenged Howard for the Liberal leadership/Prime Minister-would Costello have had the numbers to defeat Howard?

One of the ironic bits of side information about Costello thinking of challenging Howard, was that he (Costello) was looking at introducing an across the board flat tax of 30% for all taxpayers, with a Low Income rebate to ensure low income earners were no worse off. The story goes he put off the 30% tax due to the fact that the big winners would have been high income earners and he was worried that it would cause issues with his leadership ambitions;

http://www.institutional-economics.com/index.php/section/the_flat_tax_costello_rejects/

The Flat Tax Costello Rejects
The 30% flat tax plan Treasurer Peter Costello rejected:

WHEN Treasurer Peter Costello left Canberra for his Christmas break last year, he had before him modelling for the most radical reform to income tax in 60 years.


The ambitious plan, prepared for the 2005 budget, would have replaced all the existing tax scales with a single flat rate of tax of 30 per cent…

The plan was clearly affordable without pushing the budget into deficit, with the cost rising from $7.7 billion in 2005-06 to $10.1 billion in 2008-09…

Only those privy to the Treasurer’s thinking know why the plan was dropped, but it may have been because of an analysis Treasury prepared on who would be the winners. Although nobody would be worse off as a result of the changes, only 20 per cent of taxpayers would be better off.

A more plausible explanation is that Costello is rationing tax cuts to fit with his leadership timetable.

 

[little graham]

We're gonna get told that welfare cuts and reductions of social programs are result of the senate failing to cut the mining and carbon tax. We're also going to get told how much of a mess labor made of the economy, probably get told about ten times. We will be told those ten times because its a lie they are forcing down our throats. They are the only ones saying labor made a mess.

 

[Whit3y]

can we start to tax the likes of apple the appropriate tax?

 

[poller]

My tip is : Sweat will be pouring out from Joe Hockey at the 5 min mark of his budget speech

 

[Gough]

Cuts to the ABC seems to be firming.

 

[telsor]

can we start to tax the likes of apple the appropriate tax?

Not without breaking any number of international treaties.

 

[telsor]

I think it depends on if they think they'll need a DD election to secure a more compliant senate.

If they do, then they'll cut, but nothing big or popular will be hurt (much).

If not, they'll cut, and cut hard, aiming to get enough slack in the budget to allow them to be 'nicer' as we get nearer the next election.

 

[sherb]

Cuts to the ABC seems to be firming.

If so, that would make Abbott a liar then.

That's how it works isn't it?

 

[telsor]

If so, that would make Abbott a liar then.

That's how it works isn't it?

All politicians are liars, it's just a matter of degree.

 

[Juddism]

Hopefully they make enough cuts that lead to them cutting their own throat come 2.5 years from now.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

i don't think hockey has the balls to sack public servants, at worst he'd do a hiring freeze.

They said "natural attrition" would remove 12,000 public servants, which is a completley unfocussed 'hiring freeze' in a way. No idea how that's going, but anecdotally I'd suggest they are nowhere near their targets, and their targets were already wildly (and I'd say dodgily) inflated.

So why has the IMF stuck to the MYEFO script, as opposed to that in the February RBA statement on monetary policy and what’s being suggested by the currency being on the up-and-up, the stock market around multi-year highs and most private sector economists expecting the next interest rate move will be a rise? Quite simply, it looks like the IMF has been nobbled.
What tends to happen with that august body is that they receive a briefing from our official family and run with it. To come up with the 2.6 per cent figure for 2014, it looks like Treasury has been sat on by the Treasurer’s political requirements ahead of next month’s budget. We’ll have precious little good news around here, thank-you very much.
When asked about the veracity of the MYEFO figures before parliament rose, Hockey ran away from the question by having a lame slap at your correspondent. It’s a strange game that’s being played.
There is the little problem though that, if towing the official line means that the IMF economics team will be made to look dumber than usual, Australia’s Joint Economic Forecasting Group (Treasury, RBA, ABS and PM&C) will have damaged its own credibility and won’t be trusted again. For all that the Abbott government has publicly proclaimed its intention to put its own stamp on the public service, the integrity of that service is actually more important in the longer term than the aspirations of any politician.

There is another possible explanation though – either the IMF has decided for itself or it’s been told by Treasury that it will indeed be a horror budget next month, that Hockey is determined to make a full-speed ahead dash for a surplus in his first term and damn the consequences, that the spending cuts will be so severe as to knock growth down from its trend rate to 2.6 per cent. But the Treasurer wouldn’t do that – would he?
According to the AFR, the surplus-devoted government has actually seen the fastest budget deterioration over the past six months of any of the 29 most advanced economies tracked by the IMF
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/has-canberra-nobbled-the-imf-20140410-36e4p.html#ixzz2yq4j5kD1

Gee, I wonder if the IMF noting "the fastest budget deterioration over the past six months of any of the world’s 29 most advanced economies" (despite good economic indicators) has anything to do with Hockey gaming the figures to make them look as bad as possible? That's why the Coalition has done nothing about the so called "budget emergency" since it got into office. They've been busy inventing it to try and justify their previous scare campaign. What a joke.

 

[Maggie5]

I was just wondering whether things like pensions, retirement age, cuts to ABC are just red herrings to hide the real pain that will come.
Surely they would know that the majority of the electorate would not accept the things that the media are talking about.

 

[Xsess]

Liberals will talk down the economy's future to justify the cuts disproportionately hurting the poor and disabled. They'll put some 'trickle down' bullshit in it with a straight face.

Cuts are the inevitable and obvious result of Labors criminal negligence while in office. Now everyone in Australia are going to get but-hurt by funding cuts. Doesn't mean those cuts aren't the right thing to do.