Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Pushka]

At least I'm having a good laugh on some of the posts today on Good Friday.

 

[Hvr]

The unemployment figures are basically incorrect. If you count the number of unemployed and under employed the numbers are up in the high teens and maybe higher.

Well they're correct according to the methodology used to collect them but I agree that the methodology is flawed.

Of course if altered it would adversely affect the party in power because it would show a massive jump rather than merely reflecting the true figure. Not sure why this is the fault of the Labor party when both parties use the same methodology.

 

[browski]

Just one of the many fiddles employed (sorry) by the spin doctors to make the figures fit the rhetoric. Parameters governing definitions of under-employment as well as classifications of unemployed, fully employed, part-time employed are all adjusted to suit. Similarly, a discernible difference can be made by adjusting the allowed percentage for unemployable. Shifting recipients onto a differently defined Centrelink benefit immediately affects the figures.

Whilst you ladies continue your futile (yet funny) struggle with the facts I posted, I'll also give you this to ponder.

Which country has the most economic freedom?
Which country has most economic freedom? - CNN.com
Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country

The Most Free Economies 2013
1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. Australia
4. New Zealand
5. Switzerland
6. Canada
7. Chile
8. Mauritius
9. Denmark
10. United States

 

[11sjw]

Wow, so compared to a bunch of basket case European economies we're ok. Really?

Try Australia is third on a list behind such "wonderful economies" as Iceland & Ireland in countries that have had the greatest coughulative real public debt increase since 2007 (list compiled by Dr Ken Rogoff of Harvard). If this isn't seen as the commencement of US style "can kicking" then I don't know what is. Sure we started from a better position but that advantage will disappear soon.

Anyone care to nominate when this will be paid back?

 

[Pushka]

Whilst you ladies continue your futile (yet funny) struggle

You obviously haven't understood what Gillard meant by the term misogynist.

 

[browski]

You obviously haven't understood what Gillard meant by the term misogynist.

You're not a lady?

 

[Pushka]

You're not a lady?

I'm not a "Ladies".

 

[seanpodge]

WTF!!

Debt unbelievably low???

It's the highest it EVER has been in Australia's history!!

If you believe that Australia has been running a 0% inflation rate since federation, then perhaps. As a percentage of GDP, not even close.

And all those points you quote from the 3rd party endorsements of our economy are because of how the Coalition left the economy for Labor.

Labor inherited low debt (actually zero debt, and a surplus in the bank).

And the Coalition's economic record was built on the back of the neo liberal reforms of the Hawke and Keating years. Although Hawke and Keating were a little less prone to dishing up hand outs to the well off (private health insurance rebate, private school funding, non means tested welfare payments, et al).

They have blown out the debt

They've saved jobs and kept the economy growing. Other countries such as the UK have see massive spikes in unemployment and continuing recession while still failing to avoid growing debt through austerity budgets. Who'd thought that stimulating an economy would require, em, economic stimulus? :shock:

and re-regulated labor laws.

Wasn't WorkChoices 900-1000 pages of deregulation? Or is "workplace flexibility" only meant to be a one way street?

The economy is in "ok" shape despite this current Labor Govt.... Not because of them.

The GFC just never happened, did it? The millions of unemployed in Europe and the US and those news reports of Cypriots camping out at ATMs are just a fantasy, actually.

And you can't compare Australia to all the basket cases of the world and say "oh look aren't we doing great compared to all those bankrupt economies".

Unless we're counting the entire membership of the OECD as "basket cases" and "bankrupt", I think it may be a fair comparison.

If that's your view of the country's economy, then I'm concerned about how you run your household finances.

I certainly hope to never end up your creditor.

Unless you managed to get a mortgage that was only about 30% of your annual income (when most mortgages would be several hundred percent of annual income, a far higher ratio than the debt to GDP ratio of Australia), I'm not sure that you know how to run your household finances based on your own line of logic. But then again, I would thank that most people can spot some teensy, weeny differences between the average household budget and the budget of an organisation with its own army, police force, court and prison systems, taxation office, bank and mint.

 

[dfcatch]

If you believe that Australia has been running a 0% inflation rate since federation, then perhaps. As a percentage of GDP, not even close.



And the Coalition's economic record was built on the back of the neo liberal reforms of the Hawke and Keating years. Although Hawke and Keating were a little less prone to dishing up hand outs to the well off (private health insurance rebate, private school funding, non means tested welfare payments, et al).



They've saved jobs and kept the economy growing. Other countries such as the UK have see massive spikes in unemployment and continuing recession while still failing to avoid growing debt through austerity budgets. Who'd thought that stimulating an economy would require, em, economic stimulus? :shock:



Wasn't WorkChoices 900-1000 pages of deregulation? Or is "workplace flexibility" only meant to be a one way street?



The GFC just never happened, did it? The millions of unemployed in Europe and the US and those news reports of Cypriots camping out at ATMs are just a fantasy, actually.



Unless we're counting the entire membership of the OECD as "basket cases" and "bankrupt", I think it may be a fair comparison.



Unless you managed to get a mortgage that was only about 30% of your annual income (when most mortgages would be several hundred percent of annual income, a far higher ratio than the debt to GDP ratio of Australia), I'm not sure that you know how to run your household finances based on your own line of logic. But then again, I would thank that most people can spot some teensy, weeny differences between the average household budget and the budget of an organisation with its own army, police force, court and prison systems, taxation office, bank and mint.

Holy cough - where to start...

1/ Government debt is at it's highest level ever! Period! You can't spin that any other way.

It has to be paid back - and the longer that takes - the greater the opportunity cost lost in interest payments.

2/ the GFC happened - and even IF you accept that temporary stimulus was necessary, and even if you accept that all the stimulus was required etc etc - that does not excuse the monumental increase in permanent govt outlays.

This government has increased non-stimulus government spending by an obscene amount - all the while government revenue was increasing during the same period.

Don't believe everything mr swan says

3/ Yes - the Hawke/Keating reforms were important too.

4/ Yes - they are all basket cases .

Fact - our debt has massively increased from zero - to it's highest-ever level in only 5.5 years.

5/ The labor market has been re-regulated further than prior to Workchoices.

The comment quoted above - giving a 3rd party endorsement was supporting liberal labor laws - not tightening and re-regulation of labor laws - you missed my point.

6/ Most households understand the concept of living within their means and paying off debt.



You can spun ratios however you like, but fact is that we now have the highest level of debt Australia has ever had (by a long way).

Which is made worse by the fact that this mob inherited cash in the bank.

Personally - I supported the bank guarantees and stimulus mark I.

But you can not possible spin that Swan is in any way leaving the books in good shape.

 

[drron]

Basically we are in good shape because of Government's stimulation of the economy.
Unfortunately that Government is not ours but China.
Just travel regional Australia outside of mining areas and you will see many closed businesses.
If China stops it's stimulus program we are toast.

 

[Pushka]

Just travel regional Australia outside of mining areas and you will see many closed businesses.
If China stops it's stimulus program we are toast.

Travel to Adelaide and you will see many closed businesses.

 

[dfcatch]

Oh.....

It's a completely legitimate policy debate to have as to the best fiscal policy to pursue.

It's also completely legitimate to argue in favour of the current government's fiscal strategy.

But it is completely fanciful to suggest that debt is low (as Browski attempted to do above).

 

[browski]

Oh.....

It's a completely legitimate policy debate to have as to the best fiscal policy to pursue.

It's also completely legitimate to argue in favour of the current government's fiscal strategy.

But it is completely fanciful to suggest that debt is low (as Browski attempted to do above).

It seems you have now reluctantly accepted that our current economy is unbelievably strong with regards to fantastic GDP growth, record low unemployment and very low inflation.

However you still seem in a panicked state about the size of government debt. No debt is of course the best debt. But unless you can name some countries (other than Estonia and Denmark) in the developed world that have less debt; then you are behaving irrationally.

You are also very lazy with your posts. No research and no facts do you provide to support your wild statement......such as the one where you said there was no debt under John Howard. Of course that's not true, but you wrote it as if it was anyway.

Here's an extract from this article in today's Age: Abbott's paper armour

Abbott's ''Our Plan'' doesn't even bother with such a device. There is not a single word in its 50 pages conceding that Australia under the unmentionable Rudd and Gillard escaped the ravages of the global economic crisis and emerged in better shape than virtually every other developed nation.
Instead, it focuses on the government's net debt of about $150 billion, complete with confronting graphics. It looks and sounds frightening - but it very carefully doesn't mention that as a percentage of gross domestic product, government debt is vastly less than that of virtually every other developed nation. Only Denmark and Estonia are in better debt shape, and only then by a slim margin. But that's all detail.

To understand our debt in your very simplistic "Household Budget, here you are:
You're income is $361/week and your housing loan interest payments were $12/week. Do you really have a problem or are you just another misinformed fear monger?

So.........as I wrote before, Australia has unbelievably low debt.

 

[cove]

Browski I would recommend you read "macro business" to get a better understanding of the problem. If you add in the State government and local government debt plus all of their unfunded retirement for employees I think the total indebtedness we face is over 6 times your number. There is no doubt we need to make changes but unless there is a miracle we still have to wait to get rid of that dope Wayne Swan.
Wayne's idea of monthly company tax payments will result in layoffs to fix cash flow difficulties.

 

[browski]

Browski I would recommend you read "macro business" to get a better understanding of the problem. If you add in the State government and local government debt plus all of their unfunded retirement for employees I think the total indebtedness we face is over 6 times your number. There is no doubt we need to make changes but unless there is a miracle we still have to wait to get rid of that dope Wayne Swan.
Wayne's idea of monthly company tax payments will result in layoffs to fix cash flow difficulties.

I have quite a clear understanding of the issue. Not sure why you described it as a problem.
You see, if you approve of and wish to (mis)apply the Keynsian economics model of inflating and deflating the currency then the Fed Reserve policy and the Govt's stimulus/debt increase will be right up your alley.
Personally, I'm more Austrian economics and would have taken a different approach of no stimulus and allowing interest rates to go higher.

But.........we are in the world of Keynsians, and since Swannie, Bernanke, Costello and the rest of them are in its thrall, you have to measure them against the outcome of that theory. Swannie has played the theory perfectly, so he should be commended for the remarkable outcome that the australian economy has achieved; but personally I don't agree with the whole theory and believe it's been mis-applied world-wide.

 

[casanovawa]

Listening to the news today and i see Emerson on their again talking about "ordinary Australians" super being safe, that the super of workers won't be touched etc, etc...

Do these guys ever stop the class warfare nonsense and stop trying to be divisive and just think of Australian as Australians, I don't recall the former Libs ever talking so extensively in these terms, I think it (and would hope any Australian Govt) should be about putting in place incentives and opportunities for everyone to benefit, to make the cake bigger rather than these current bunch of rabble rousers who only ever seem to worry about dividing it up smaller and smaller and touting how much they are redistributing it and manipulating one segment against another...

 

[Moody]

Listening to the news today and i see Emerson on their again talking about "ordinary Australians" super being safe, that the super of workers won't be touched etc, etc...

Do these guys ever stop the class warfare nonsense and stop trying to be divisive and just think of Australian as Australians, I don't recall the former Libs ever talking so extensively in these terms, I think it (and would hope any Australian Govt) should be about putting in place incentives and opportunities for everyone to benefit, to make the cake bigger rather than these current bunch of rabble rousers who only ever seem to worry about dividing it up smaller and smaller and touting how much they are redistributing it and manipulating one segment against another...

How about if they describe their intentions as "We are going to make it harder for the obscenely rich to get obscenely richer via the superannuation regulations."? Would that be OK??? Thought not.

Winding down the histrionics a bit .... since superannuation was brought in to encourage/force people and their employers to fund their own retirement, there have been many tweaks and twiddles. It's a bit like the taxation laws - they try to make it fairer each time and close a few loopholes that the unscrupulous exploit to the max (no-one here of course), but its a moveable feast and the greedy find another way of avoiding paying their share.

A particular favourite of late was to make the maximum allowed contributions and then take the lump sum as a pension once you had reached the requisite age, whilst starting a new scheme and getting tax breaks both ways. All within the law of course but a coughisation of the intent.

But ...... I'm not a fan of any government shifting the goalposts so I will applaud any party that can come up with a fair and durable system where everyone knows where they stand and the correct amount of incentive is applied to all.

Alas - this debate is going the same way as media laws and the imbecilic sheep that think they own this country will cry wolf like they always do, and we will retain the broken system. Wouldn't want to make any progress, would we?

 

[Pukka]

How about if they describe their intentions as "We are going to make it harder for the obscenely rich to get obscenely richer via the superannuation regulations."? Would that be OK??? Thought not.

Winding down the histrionics a bit .... since superannuation was brought in to encourage/force people and their employers to fund their own retirement, there have been many tweaks and twiddles. It's a bit like the taxation laws - they try to make it fairer each time and close a few loopholes that the unscrupulous exploit to the max (no-one here of course), but its a moveable feast and the greedy find another way of avoiding paying their share.

A particular favourite of late was to make the maximum allowed contributions and then take the lump sum as a pension once you had reached the requisite age, whilst starting a new scheme and getting tax breaks both ways. All within the law of course but a coughisation of the intent.

But ...... I'm not a fan of any government shifting the goalposts so I will applaud any party that can come up with a fair and durable system where everyone knows where they stand and the correct amount of incentive is applied to all.

Alas - this debate is going the same way as media laws and the imbecilic sheep that think they own this country will cry wolf like they always do, and we will retain the broken system. Wouldn't want to make any progress, would we?

I'd like to know what the definition of obscenely rich is in relation to super.

I have a champagne socialist guy that works for me aged 60 that has done incredibly well shoving cash into super at $100k a year while it was allowed and he has a fund of $5m+

I don't think it's what you earn that's relevant but how much the funds worth that should define how much tax you pay on contributions.

Wayne Swan's is apparently worth $5m+ so he should get screwed over but I don't suppose that will happen

 

[cove]

Yes Wayne Swan will need to be careful to exempt himself from a new levy on superannuation but I would laugh if he shot himself in the foot on this issue.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Libs use carrots.
Labs use sticks.
I think most Australians would prefer to eat carrots than be beaten with sticks.