Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[medhead]

How can posting the actual numbers over several terms of government be cheery picking????????

I say again - THE ACTUAL NUMBERS!

In fact, I don't believe my post stated anything other than - numbers, numbers, numbers

Pretty easy to see the posts that started to claim all sorts of things.......including the normal personal slagging that you regularly dish out!

You should cease with personal attacks and keep the post on subject!

You quoted the gross tax receipts and then launched into your tirade. You cherry picked one number and had a rant while ignoring every thing else that people have mentioned like %gdp. This is exactly the same as your cherry picking gross debt and having a rant, while ignoring an comparison to a relevant base or the evidence that shows the entire world has faced similar problems.

You have a history of cherry picking your one favorite number, without bothering to compare it to a base that is consistent across multiple years and then having a tirade at the ALP. That is utter BS

 

[drsmithy]

The government created the scheme which was inadequately regulated which allowed a bunch of cowboy operators to set up overnight and basically milk the scheme using low paid inadequately trained/supervised staff.

So yes I blame the government. It was knee jerk policy as usual

I'll have to remember how fond you are of Government regulation of business the next time you're complaining about it.

Personally, when someone dies because of their employer's negligence, I blame the negligent employer, rather than the Government.

Though if you want to blame workplace deaths during the Coalition Government on the Coalition, that would offer some consistency.

 

[amaroo]

You quoted the gross tax receipts and then launched into your tirade. You cherry picked one number and had a rant while ignoring every thing else that people have mentioned like %gdp. This is exactly the same as your cherry picking gross debt and having a rant, while ignoring an comparison to a relevant base or the evidence that shows the entire world has faced similar problems.

You have a history of cherry picking your one favorite number, without bothering to compare it to a base that is consistent across multiple years and then having a tirade at the ALP. That is utter BS

Tirade......that's so funny! Thanks for the morning laugh.

 

[medhead]

Well the Government's own reports into BER showed that for QLD,NSW and Victoria showed that the public sector overpaid by 25% compared to Catholic schools and 55% to Independent schools.
And just in case you want to duck shove the blame to State Governments the best value obtained by State Governments was WA-the only Coalition Government.
See here-
http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/file...ion_implementation_taskforce_final_report.pdf

Or the easy version-
Building the Education Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right so it was only a failure for some state governments that failed to impose proper cost controls like the catholic, independent and WA schools did. So it was not a failure in total.

The government created the scheme which was inadequately regulated which allowed a bunch of cowboy operators to set up overnight and basically milk the scheme using low paid inadequately trained/supervised staff.

So yes I blame the government. It was knee jerk policy as usual

What you fail to mention is that the state governments are reasonable for regulatin building standards.

 

[medhead]

Tirade......that's so funny! Thanks for the morning laugh.

Right so who is engaged in personal attacks again. Who accused me of torturing numbers. Why don't you try addressing the subject of the post instead of personally attacking my with your snide comments? I guess you can't do that because I'm correct.

 

[amaroo]

Right so who is engaged in personal attacks again. Who accused me of torturing numbers. Why don't you try addressing the subject of the post instead of personally attacking my with your snide comments? I guess you can't do that because I'm correct.

Ok - sure, you're correct:mrgreen:

 

[medhead]

Ok - sure, you're correct:mrgreen:

And you repeated failure to defend your selective use of numbers proves it. Instead of snide personal attacks try discussing the subject.

 

[amaroo]

And you repeated failure to defend your selective use of numbers proves it. Instead of snide personal attacks try discussing the subject.

How many times do you want me to post - you're correct?

 

[Pukka]

I'll have to remember how fond you are of Government regulation of business the next time you're complaining about it.

Personally, when someone dies because of their employer's negligence, I blame the negligent employer, rather than the Government.

Though if you want to blame workplace deaths during the Coalition Government on the Coalition, that would offer some consistency.

The problem with these government schemes is that they are seen as an endless source of cash and every trade/profession have unscrupulous elements that come out of the woodwork to fill their boots and before you know it there's a massive overspend with not much to show for it.

I'll give you a TA example of bad policy.

The chronic disease dental scheme. Nice idea well meaning could have been great but was a disaster.

It wasn't means tested, the qualification parameters were vague to say the least and the items of service were too comprehensive (because you can't discriminate against sick people)

The end result was that instead of it being restricted to those that actually needed it it ended up subsidizing luxury treatment like implants for rich people that convinced their GP they had chronic headaches or were depressed because they were missing a front tooth etc

Same with the consultancy fees with the school halls and the inadequate work with the pink batts

If the government are going to implement these hugely expensive schemes they need to consult more with the relevant trades/professions so that they can actually come up with something that will work and give value for money rather than something that is dreamed up on the spur of the moment.

 

[Moody]

How many times do you want me to post - you're correct?

Then you will have no problem redacting your own post and replacing it with the comment - "Sorry - this was just biassed rubbish sponsored by News Corp".

Personally I would rather you defended your post with logic and reasoning, but I can see how that would be a big ask .....

 

[medhead]

The problem with these government schemes is that they are seen as an endless source of cash and every trade/profession have unscrupulous elements that come out of the woodwork to fill their boots and before you know it there's a massive overspend with not much to show for it.

I'll give you a TA example of bad policy.

The chronic disease dental scheme. Nice idea well meaning could have been great but was a disaster.

It wasn't means tested, the qualification parameters were vague to say the least and the items of service were too comprehensive (because you can't discriminate against sick people)

The end result was that instead of it being restricted to those that actually needed it it ended up subsidizing luxury treatment like implants for rich people that convinced their GP they had chronic headaches or were depressed because they were missing a front tooth etc

Same with the consultancy fees with the school halls and the inadequate work with the pink batts

If the government are going to implement these hugely expensive schemes they need to consult more with the relevant trades/professions so that they can actually come up with something that will work and give value for money rather than something that is dreamed up on the spur of the moment.

The point however, is if a "failed" scheme makes someone unfit to govern then applying the same standard suggest Abbott is unfit to govern because if the "failed" dental scheme. My objection is demand the government be replaced because if these projects and be replaced by the author of a failed project. Double standards.

 

[amaroo]

Then you will have no problem redacting your own post and replacing it with the comment - "Sorry - this was just biassed rubbish sponsored by News Corp".

Personally I would rather you defended your post with logic and reasoning, but I can see how that would be a big ask .....

What needs defending )

The numbers speak for themselves.........please quote the offending post so we can have a real debate! Rather than this bullying stuff. Its all very entertaining however, very boring.

 

[Moody]

The problem with these government schemes is that they are seen as an endless source of cash and every trade/profession have unscrupulous elements that come out of the woodwork to fill their boots and before you know it there's a massive overspend with not much to show for it.

I'll give you a TA example of bad policy.

The chronic disease dental scheme. Nice idea well meaning could have been great but was a disaster.

It wasn't means tested, the qualification parameters were vague to say the least and the items of service were too comprehensive (because you can't discriminate against sick people)

The end result was that instead of it being restricted to those that actually needed it it ended up subsidizing luxury treatment like implants for rich people that convinced their GP they had chronic headaches or were depressed because they were missing a front tooth etc

Same with the consultancy fees with the school halls and the inadequate work with the pink batts

If the government are going to implement these hugely expensive schemes they need to consult more with the relevant trades/professions so that they can actually come up with something that will work and give value for money rather than something that is dreamed up on the spur of the moment.

You make some good points but also have overlooked the major one - the primary purpose of these stimulus schemes was NOT to be the most efficient infrastructure projects of all time. They were emergency measures to stop hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs and the economy going into recession.

The Home Insulation Scheme was great in concept - employing casual labour and giving a lasting environmental benefit - but the existing regulatory standards were not robust, and by making the scheme too generous they attracted shonks and get rich quick scumbags. The cons unfortunately outweighed the pros, and in hindsight the use of foil insulation should have been banned from the start.

The BER Scheme was aimed more at the building industry and whilst it seems that public schools were ripped off the reality is not that simple. The principal at our kids' school at the time said that the education department gave them the option of managing their own BER budget, but he (like most of them) opted not to become a project manager and have to try to negotiate with various companies to meet the various restrictions on the cash. Then when the projects started there were only so much raw material available for the types of buildings that were approved by the department (halls, classrooms, etc.) and he did a pretty good job at getting changes to the admin block and library done under BER. There were delays and restrictions to overcome, but in the end we got a lot of stuff through that the P&C had earmarked for the next 10 years. So if there were cases of deliberate rip-offs then they should certainly be investigated, but saying that the whole scheme was therefore a waste of time and money is ridiculous. It was the single biggest program that prevented Australia from going into recession.

So yes - you would not normally rush programs of this size through. They were not normal times, however.

 

[amaroo]

Then you will have no problem redacting your own post and replacing it with the comment - "Sorry - this was just biassed rubbish sponsored by News Corp".

Personally I would rather you defended your post with logic and reasoning, but I can see how that would be a big ask .....

Nothing to do with News Corp - see here 5506.0 - Taxation Revenue, Australia, 2011-12

You probably can't be bothered to get the facts or read the actual post - here you go

They have some nice graphs




Finally, sarcasm should be very easily detected when one uses a multitude of funny images & icons! How this is missed by some - is beyond me......

Numbers, numbers, numbers......

TOTAL TAXATION REVENUE


SUMMARY

A feature of the Australian federal system is that the Commonwealth Government levies and collects all income tax, from individuals as well as from enterprises. It also collects a portion of other taxes, including taxes on the provision of goods and services. The revenue base of state governments consists of taxes on property, on employers' payroll, and on the provision and use of goods and services. The sole source of taxation revenue for local governments is taxes on property.

Taxes on income increased $26,310m (13%) while taxes on property increased $286m (1%) and taxes on provisions of goods and services increased $2,172m (2%). Taxes on income represented 59% of total taxation revenue for all levels of government and taxes on provision of goods and services, including the goods and services tax (GST) represented 24%.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: DefaultTextBold, width: 100%, colspan: 7"]

TOTAL TAXATION REVENUE​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 100%, colspan: 7"]

---

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43%"]

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableTextBold, width: 9%"]

2006–07​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableTextBold, width: 9%"]

2007–08​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableTextBold, width: 9%"]

2008–09​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableTextBold, width: 9%"]

2009–10​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableTextBold, width: 9%"]

2010–11​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableTextBold, width: 10%"]

2011–12​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 43%"]

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

$m​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

$m​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

$m​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

$m​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

$m​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 10%"]

$m​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TableTextBold, width: 100%, colspan: 7"]

---

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 100%, colspan: 7"]

---

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 43%"]Taxes on income[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

189 066​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

208 233​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

200 997​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

186 660​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

204 546​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 10%"]

230 871​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 43%"]Employers' payroll taxes[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

350​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

381​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

377​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

507​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

505​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 10%"]

528​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 43%"]Taxes on property[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

15​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

15​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

16​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

12​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

13​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 10%"]

13​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 43%"]Taxes on provision of goods and services[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

71 452​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

75 863​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

75 141​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

78 865​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

81 788​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 10%"]

83 377​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 43%"]Taxes on use of goods and performance of activities[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

1 218​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

1 462​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

1 831​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

1 513​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

2 272​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 10%"]

3 099​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 43%"]Total taxation revenue[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

262 101​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

285 954​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

278 363​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

267 556​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 9%"]

289 124​

[/TD]
[TD="class: TableText, width: 10%"]

317 888​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: TableTextBold, width: 100%, colspan: 7"]

---

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[eastwest101]

So yes - you would not normally rush programs of this size through. They were not normal times, however.

Agree with your descriptions of the haste of some of the government stimulous programs, the problem is that the people whom urged a more cautionary or incremental approach to stimulous got shouted down. Not necessarily accusing anyone here of that - whom knows- but the GFC is a bit over-hyped in my opinion in that sure the US, UK, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, France and a few more European economies tanked due to specualtive housing bubbles, government and private debt and unwinding of complex financial instruments the rest of the worlds economies continued on - like China, Canada, most of SE Asia, the Middle East, Germany, Netherlands, Scandanavian countries, a lot of Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America, Africa, Australia and NZ.


Due to a floating currency, interest rates, resource based exports to China and a fairly well capitalized banking system the Australian economy was never in as much danger as those that are still struggling today. As it turns out - the stimulous was so disproportionate to the risks involved, partially wasteful, and competed with the continuation of the resources boom (blew out costs and timeframes), that it really just delayed the inevitable correction in the economy from 2008 to 2012 and introduced a lot of public spending that needed to be unwound. Now we are at 2013 and searching for spare change down the back of the couch where if we had kept some of our powder dry we could be investing in more infrastructure in a more measured way.

 

[Pushka]

No point in posting facts because history here shows they get ignored.

 

[Moody]

No point in posting facts because history here shows they get ignored.

Anybody can post "facts", but it is the interpretation of those facts (i.e. - reality) that is contentious and subject to constant revision. Such is life.

 

[amaroo]

The problem with these government schemes is that they are seen as an endless source of cash and every trade/profession have unscrupulous elements that come out of the woodwork to fill their boots and before you know it there's a massive overspend with not much to show for it.

When those pink batts were being driven around the streets of Australia stuffed into box trailers, vans, utes - just about all of them were manufactured offshore. A great chunk of the labour to install them were backpackers and plenty of people with minimal links to Australia made a bank vault of money.

Every house was basically quoted the flat price that equaled the maximum amount allowed and at most dinner parties it was the biggest joke around.

I had two properties quoted - surprise, surprise both came in at $1,600.......big lead times because everyone was chock-a-block with orders/work. When the warning bells started to ring in CBR the investment property cap dropped down IIRC - $1,200.

Called the company that had given me a 3 month lead time and advised that if the order couldn't be completed by the new deadline date (1.6k - 1.2k) .......don't bother, as I'll be cancelling the orders. The batts were fitted within days and the Gov got slugged with $3,200 for a project that should have been around half that.

I have no doubt this was replicated across the land and what should have been a brilliant project was totally butchered by pathetic implementation.

 

[Moody]

Agree with your descriptions of the haste of some of the government stimulous programs, the problem is that the people whom urged a more cautionary or incremental approach to stimulous got shouted down. Not necessarily accusing anyone here of that - whom knows- but the GFC is a bit over-hyped in my opinion in that sure the US, UK, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, France and a few more European economies tanked due to specualtive housing bubbles, government and private debt and unwinding of complex financial instruments the rest of the worlds economies continued on - like China, Canada, most of SE Asia, the Middle East, Germany, Netherlands, Scandanavian countries, a lot of Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America, Africa, Australia and NZ. .

A "more cautionary or incremental approach to stimulous (sic)" would have seen Australia go into recession. Admittedly the impact of what would have been a comparitively mild recession is impossible to predict, but one of the important elements that kept us going (amongst others) was consumer confidence. A lot of people here were either unaware that the global financial system was going belly-up, or (like me) were simply too busy planning how to spend the extra dosh that interest rate cuts had handed me. And lumping NZ into the "did OK" bucket is strange. They were already into a mild recession when the GFC hit, and stimulus spending by the Labour and National governments along with demand from the Australian and Chinese economies was what got them through without too many scars. Growth is now back on trend partly due to the ChCh rebuild, but the housing sector is still struggling. I'd still rather be here than there.

Due to a floating currency, interest rates, resource based exports to China and a fairly well capitalized banking system the Australian economy was never in as much danger as those that are still struggling today. As it turns out - the stimulous was so disproportionate to the risks involved, partially wasteful, and competed with the continuation of the resources boom (blew out costs and timeframes), that it really just delayed the inevitable correction in the economy from 2008 to 2012 and introduced a lot of public spending that needed to be unwound. Now we are at 2013 and searching for spare change down the back of the couch where if we had kept some of our powder dry we could be investing in more infrastructure in a more measured way.

Yep - if we held some back before we would have more ammo now. But as we have a AAA credit rating ammo is not in short supply, it is more a case of is it time to hit the accelerator or the brake. The world economy is still fragile and China is cooling - normally that would lead to a government running deficits to cushion the economy, but economics have been so politicised in this country that you can't have a rational debate. Instead we have biassed and unqualified media hacks spitting out simplistic rubbish and the politicians all try to dance to their tune while pointing out how stupid the other side looks doing exactly the same thing.

It's a joke.

 

[11sjw]

A general question for the group. Has there been any discussion on when either side would start reducing our debt and how they'd do it?

Haven't seen any.