Tony Abbott - New Opposition Leader

[Dee Thom]

Maybe Abbott will be able to force Rudd into debate in a way that Turnbull was unable to achieve.

Well Said !!!.........................

Cheers Dee

 

[drron]

Ah politics.Amazing what people believe.Yes Medhead and Keith Keating did make absolutely necessary reforms to the economy.But most were in fact before the recession we had to have.jacking up interest rates to nearly 20% certainly acheived wonderful results.
Now just why did Keating lose in 96.Let me think-an inspiring opposition leader with breathtaking policies.Hmm.Maybe because Australians just didnt believe the musings of the true believers and felt they werent better off.
Despite the blinkers Medhead Costello at least kept Australia out of debt and that and not Keating's reforms is what has enabled the Fairy ruddfather and his tooth fairy sidekick to spend our way temporarily out of trouble.

 

[ejb]

...Despite the blinkers Medhead Costello at least kept Australia out of debt and that and not Keating's reforms is what has enabled the Fairy ruddfather and his tooth fairy sidekick to spend our way temporarily out of trouble.

While actually spending our way into massive trouble. But KRudd knows he is not long for this job so he will not need to figure out how to pay down the debt created to buy the votes of the silly and stupid.:evil:

Conservatives make money, ALP spends money, always has been and always will be true.

When you put people into power with no real world experience how do you expect them to manage a huge budget (and being a ACTU lacky is not experience it is snout in trough time).

Before becoming an MP people should need to show experience at running something more substantial than a student union cake store.

ejb

 

[coco50]

Ah ! How quick we forget that over the years the LNP when returned to power, has had the task of rebuilding the Australian Economy, but LAB has always had a handy surplus to start their spending stupidity............

Cheers Dee

When Howard was elected most of the fundamentals were in place such as a relatively low inflation level and reasonable unemployment. If you think that the spending of the current Government is stupidity ask those in the building industry, the motor vehicle industry or the retail idustry who would have been unemployed if it had not been for the foresight and sound policy of Rudd and Swan. How many other countries other than Australia have not drifted into recession? Come on Dee - remember that Howard was also boosted by a massive resources boom and that his government failed to do anything about improving national infrastructure. And let's not forget WorkChoices (or should I say Sacked and Out of a Job Choices))

 

[Dee Thom]

I just wish gRUDD would get off his world-wide soap-box, and spend sometime in Aus to try to do the job he was ellected for ??????
K Rudd is to statesmenship, what Venus Williams is to Ballet....Stuff All.

Cheers Dee

 

[Dee Thom]

How many other countries other than Australia have not drifted into recession?

Robert, there are three main reasons in answer to your question:-
1) As you said Australias' massive resources.
2) That huge surplus that was left for the ALP.
3) The CHINA factor ( the economic downturn did not effect them )

Cheers Dee

 

[straitman]

I was going to answer post #117 but don't see the need any more :!:

 

[Alanslegal]

Robert, there are three main reasons in answer to your question:-
1) As you said Australias' massive resources.
2) That huge surplus that was left for the ALP.
3) The CHINA factor ( the economic downturn did not effect them )

Cheers Dee

Guess we are super lucky to have a chinese speaking PM who can build a positive relationship with the chinese, since the China factor is critical to the wealth of this nation.

On the other hand, if the LNP got in, we'd be broke since China and the world would be banned from investing any $$$$$$ in Australia (many thanks to Barnaby) :shock:

 

[coco50]

Robert, there are three main reasons in answer to your question:-
1) As you said Australias' massive resources.
2) That huge surplus that was left for the ALP.
3) The CHINA factor ( the economic downturn did not effect them )

Cheers Dee

• The massive resources boom wasn't due to any great maneuvring by the Howard govt.
• The huge surplus was substantially due to taxes raised from:

(A) overtaxing superannuation for many of the 12 long years that the tories were in power
(B) taxes and royalties raised from the resources boom

• If you think China wasn't affected by the GFC (aka economic downturn) you have to be joking! OK they may not have been in recession, but their economy was hit hard as demand for goods from the US and Europe dried up.

 

[drron]

• The massive resources boom wasn't due to any great maneuvring by the Howard govt.
• The huge surplus was substantially due to taxes raised from:

(A) overtaxing superannuation for many of the 12 long years that the tories were in power
(B) taxes and royalties raised from the resources boom

• If you think China wasn't affected by the GFC (aka economic downturn) you have to be joking! OK they may not have been in recession, but their economy was hit hard as demand for goods from the US and Europe dried up.

You have got to be joking.
A.Unlike the ALP the tories encourage exploration and mining.
B.Funny my super taxes went down during the Howard years and have already gone up thanks to Tooth fairy Swan.

 

[bambbbam2]

Both sides are guilty of using super as a cash cow.

* The Howard govt created the superannuation surcharge in 1996

* If Keating had his way, the super rate would have been 15% rather than 9% and the amount of super in Australia wouldbe double what it is now

* The Howard govt did introduce choice of fund for most employees though, and the co-contribution scheme

 

[medhead]

Ah politics.Amazing what people believe.Yes Medhead and Keith Keating did make absolutely necessary reforms to the economy.But most were in fact before the recession we had to have.jacking up interest rates to nearly 20% certainly acheived wonderful results.
Now just why did Keating lose in 96.Let me think-an inspiring opposition leader with breathtaking policies.Hmm.Maybe because Australians just didnt believe the musings of the true believers and felt they werent better off.
Despite the blinkers Medhead Costello at least kept Australia out of debt and that and not Keating's reforms is what has enabled the Fairy ruddfather and his tooth fairy sidekick to spend our way temporarily out of trouble.

Well there are some many good responses to this political debate. It is hard to know where to start. So sorry in advance Drron if it looks like I'm picking on you. Obviously it is true, as you say about the timing of reforms. But the "recession we had to have" is a great narrative and it matches the facts since, broadly speaking. And I fully given Howard/Costello some credit. But then having heard the "world's greatest treasurer" speak on this matter, he claims that his reforms are automatically balancing. That is also a good narrative to claim credit for work that might have later.

Why did keating loss. I'm not sure, I hated him more in 1993 than in 1996. But the hate was still there in 1996 - Me a uni student applying for hundreds of jobs and getting nothing and keating telling me to go and get a job. I hated that arrogant sod. But I basically, think he was beaten by a lie, "Never, ever GST". Yes they went to an election with the GST but they onyl won by the skin of their teeth. Across the entire country it was actually about 50.5% to ALP at that election. Why did keating loss, I don't really know, besides hatred and what turned out to be a convincing misrepresentation. I also lost a job in 1996 because Howard froze all spending.

Which gets me to a final point, kind of. That point being GST. It is only GST that kept Costello out of debt. 96 to 98 was slash and burn time for the Libs. Then they got the GST and this was a magic pill for them on debt. IF you look at the budget papers over a number of years and pick out the tax take as a percentage of GDP, long term this number has sat between about 20% and 25%. Costello classed GST as a state tax and never included it in his tax taken number, so that number dropped to all time lows. But if you add in GST it was actually at all time highs. So in my view Howard and costello over taxed us iif we use that measure, by about 1 to 2% of GDP.

Even if you don't believe that they still collected the same as keating did in some years in terms of GDP, but they no longer had to pay state funding grants. So they squirrelled that money away and spent up big time buying votes before each election. Not only that, as noted they didn't invest in infrastructure, which has really hurt our economy now. To me while the cash is positive the lack of investment is a major debt that is going to take years to fix.

BTW I don't believe in this cough about ALP always spends and Libs save. Otherwise, I'd just pull out that Australia always turns to ALP in the hard times - WW1 and WW2 for a start.

 

[oz_mark]

Why did keating loss. I'm not sure, I hated him more in 1993 than in 1996. But the hate was still there in 1996 - Me a uni student applying for hundreds of jobs and getting nothing and keating telling me to go and get a job. I hated that arrogant sod. But I basically, think he was beaten by a lie, "Never, ever GST".

I think Keating's basic problem was that he was a better econominst than he was politicion. He cerainly exuded an air of arrogance.

Which gets me to a final point, kind of. That point being GST. It is only GST that kept Costello out of debt. 96 to 98 was slash and burn time for the Libs. Then they got the GST and this was a magic pill for them on debt.

While something went awry in its implementation, I do think GST was the right way to go. Got rid of that horrid sales tax system, got rid of a bunch of state taxes.

Not only that, as noted they didn't invest in infrastructure, which has really hurt our economy now. To me while the cash is positive the lack of investment is a major debt that is going to take years to fix.

The state labor governments were equally as guilty on this front.

BTW I don't believe in this cough about ALP always spends and Libs save. Otherwise, I'd just pull out that Australia always turns to ALP in the hard times - WW1 and WW2 for a start.

Nah, Australians mostly go for whichever party is closest to centre. When liberal or labor get in, over time their ideology gets the better of them and they head left or right (as appropriate) with the opposition moving into the middle ground.

 

[serfty]

The GST initially raised far more revenue than ever predicted by Keating (when he advocated it) and Howard (when he implemented it). (This was despite some disreputes with dummy "companies" ripping off millions in Input Credit rebates in the early days.)

In more recent years, it has all settled down and there are established legal methods to reduce one's GST exposure.

As far as discussing the merits of various politicians, I'll leave that to others and look after myself and kin as best as I can.

One thing I do like about preferential voting is it's actually a vote against candidates, not for.

e.g. If there are four candidates:

• You put your #4 against the candidate you dislike the most,
• #3 against the next candidate you dislike but not as much as the one you put 4 against,
• #2 against the candidate that is not as undesirable as the #4 and #5, and,
• #1 against the candidate you dislike the least.

What this really means is that while the #4 candidate is guaranteed not to get your vote, one of the other 3 may (depending upon the polling returns).

 

[medhead]

While something went awry in its implementation, I do think GST was the right way to go. Got rid of that horrid sales tax system, got rid of a bunch of state taxes.

My other comments certainly don't prevent me from seeing (and agreeing with) the truth of what you've said.

On the GST I'd only say that the apparent increased tax take suggests that they could have killed a lot more taxes. But they didn't. Also that post GST the goverment is effectively collecting an extra 10% compared to before GST, IMO makes it almost meaningless to compare debt or lack of debt under the pre and post GST government's.

 

[serfty]

I will note that overall, income tax rates (and amounts collected) have decreased significantly in the last 8 years - without GST this would not have been the case.

 

[JohnK]

Interesting discussion on politics and religion. Personally I have no faith in politicians and I couldn't care who is leading which party but one thing is clear is the Liberals have almost certainly lost the next election if not the one after as well.

I for one am tired of this ETS/methane discussion!

I personally leave no carbon footprint because I drive everywhere and if it's too far to drive I fly. Ergo no footprint!

As far as the cattle/methane argument is concerned, I do my bit there as well - I have T-bone steak every night

Classic.

 

[notzac]

One thing I do like about preferential voting is it's actually a vote against candidates, not for.

One of the best summaries I've read! Thanks

 

[Alanslegal]

The GST initially raised far more revenue than ever predicted by Keating (when he advocated it) and Howard (when he implemented it). (This was despite some disreputes with dummy "companies" ripping off millions in Input Credit rebates in the early days.)

In more recent years, it has all settled down and there are established legal methods to reduce one's GST exposure.

If I remember correctly, one of the biggest points the Coalition made when wanting to introduce the GST was that it would get rid of, or reduce the 'black' cash economy.

I am pretty sure that I have read reports that under the GST, the opposite has happened and the 'black' cash economy has grown significantly.

 

[serfty]

... I am pretty sure that I have read reports that under the GST, the opposite has happened and the 'black' cash economy has grown significantly.

It may have, however actual GST revenue has outstripped predictions.

It must be all that less taxed personal income finding its way around ...