A narrowing trend in recent federal polling has come to an abrupt halt with this week’s Essential Research survey, which shows Labor’s lead blowing out from 57-43 to 61-39. Supplementary questions find the punters anticipating budget misery and loving it – twice as many (38 per cent to 19 per cent) expect it to be bad for them personally as expect it to be good, while 49 per cent want tax cuts deferred against 35 per cent who want them to proceed. In other news, most support the government’s changes to the emissions trading scheme and oppose the commitment of further troops to Afghanistan.
Haha I know. I don’t find the video particularly interesting but to suggest Swan is wasting his time on it, instead of the budget, is a joke.
I sort of feel sorry for the Labor strategists, they probably spent a fair amount of effort and money coming up with that video (most likely professionally done even though it’s supposed to look amateurish) but only 300 people have seen it.
No 95
Well forgive me I don’t believe you.
If the press stories are correct, I’m pretty sure that I will be disadvantaged through some decrease in the private health insurance rebate, and possibly the superannuation changes. On the other hand some of this may be cancelled out by some tax cuts.
I’m by no means sure, however, what effect all of this will have on my voting intentions, or those of others. On one hypothesis, people disadvantaged in net terms may be inclined to change their votes out of self-interest. There is, however, another possibility, that they will judge the overall package by the extent to which it meets their intuitive sense of “fairness”.
Part of the problem the opposition is facing at the moment is that in relation to fairness, they really conceded the turf to the ALP quite some time back, tending rather to deny the very validity of the concept. Maybe that’s what they got from reading their libertarian philosophers, but it’s by no means clear that the public are behind them on that point.
SNIP: See article 2 of comment moderation guidelines – The Management.
No 101
It was a throwaway political jibe. Get over it.
Why would a Labor strategist even bother with this silly excuse for a video? Almost as bad as Howard’s pathetic youtube videos in 2007.
But to check statements may often mean the ‘journalist’ has to find some other issue to write about.
Centre
It’s got worse, not better, using any measure. There were two reasons for that;
1. The people who took out private health insurance because of the rebate were ones who almost never used a public hospital, so the numbers presenting just gets worse.
2. Because Howie wasted so much money paying out the rebate, he had to shortchange the public hospitals and leave the States carrying the can.
On a general note, I joined Crikey a week ago and there’s all these interesting blogs there (Rooted about the environment, Croakey about Health, Poison Pen about crap right-wing media). Almost no-one posts on any of those sites though. Crikey has about 20 blogs and PB gets about 95% of the Crikey blog posts which is obviously a testament to William.
It’s well worthwhile having a look at our sister blogs.
Great work Boerwar.
I really don’t know how Kerr continues to draw a paycheck at the Oz. His “House Rules” thing is a very poor man’s Annabel Crabbe. And 96% of his reports are Liberal Party talking points.
Kerrr should have a look back at his old Crikey site and see Keane showing him how to do it.
Well good luck with both of those. The industrial working class and the poor have to carry the can for a crisis brought on by greedy and stupid bankers and speculators. If your elders in the Liberal Party care to engage in such naked class warfare, you’ll be in opposition forever.
Yeah I guess I’d lie just to win a debate between two anonymous people on a blog.
Anyhoo. I have to admit my sources are more from the Howard camp than that of Costello’s. No doubt they enjoy putting forward the “Keating line”.
I also note that he didn’t include unemployed people from his welfare ‘reform’, so I guess that means he has no problem pushing hundreds of thousands onto the street during a recession.
Nice social policy right there.
726 now!!!!!!!!
The only thing worse than Liberals in Government is Liberals in Opposition.
At least when in opposition they can’t legislate unaffordable tax cuts and increase middle class welfare.
They didn’t assume anything of the sort. In fact, that is an assumption contrived on your part.
I have accepted that many times in the past. The difference, of course, is that Howard didn’t spend what he didn’t have. He also didn’t blame Keating for the 2001 deficit, years after Keating left office, unlike Rudd & Swan are doing to Howard.
Also, it is rather hypocritical for the government to be blaming Howard for spending measures Labor tacitly supported in the 2008 budget.
Of course they don’t. But my comment was directed to your “money doesn’t grow on trees” line. You said Rudd/Swan don’t think money goes on trees, yet you clearly think the opposite when it comes to slogging people for having the temerity to be successful and have high incomes, as if it were their duty to the nation.
There is really only one over-arching test for this budget:
What will it do to help stop climate change?
All the other issues are important, but second order issues only.
Oh OK, so they must’ve just put the budget in structural deficit on PURPOSE, which is even worse.
Well he did actually, that’s why the budget went into deficit in 2001, and also:
BY DEFINITION, Howard spent money he didn’t have, because the tax cuts were implemented on unrealistic projections that proved to be completely untrue.
Yes I do believe that paying tax is a duty to the nation, and also a legal obligation.
You seem to think people do it voluntarily!
Psephos, I think you missed Yarra from your list of abolished Federation seats.
No 109
1. The Auto industry has had an innumerable amount of assistance packages and still cannot stand on its own two feet. Their parent companies are making huge losses, with GM on the verge of bankruptcy. Talk about flogging a dead horse. Also your sudden affliction of care for the “industrial classes” is at odds with your punishing attitude to coal industry jobs.
2. Welfare spending could be slashed at virtually no real cost to many of the beneficiaries. Eliminate inefficient churn by cutting taxes.
Thanks Diogs @107. That’s sounds absolutely spot on.
Glen and GP should read post 107. By scrapping the 30% private health rebate the Liberals can no longer defend their own silly ideology which obviously places a huge burden on the budget.
Grog
Thanks. If Rupe’s income continues to plunge he might have to shift some of the dead weight. His problem may be how to choose between the dross and the chaff.
Unfortunately, I fell prey to Don’s law and made a grammo in a post in which I had criticised Kerr for making an error.
Cutting taxes will increase the budget deficit!
Now I get it. You actually couldn’t care less about the budget deficit, you are the same as that idiot Costello who thinks the solution to any problem is tax cuts.
Liberals in opposition is great, especially when they think it is they who should be governing.
As Keating said 93 was the sweetest victory, just to see the libs on the opposition benches when they fully expected to be on the govt benches.
Well of course it’s their duty. In good times they make fantastic incomes and live like kings. In bad times they can afford to take a cut from very rich to merely rich, so that their fellow-citizens, the people whose labour they exploit, can be prevented from sinking into poverty. This is called social solidarity. I refer you to numerous statements by the Catholic Church in support of this principle.
GP
I would be curious about your views on government financial support for primary industries? I would be including restructure packages such as that for sugar.
GP
The top tax rate is 45% and kicks in at $150,000 for 2007-8. In 2008-9 it will kick in at $180,000. I’m hoping the rate will go down as well but I can’t find out if it will. 😀
There’s no point discussing income tax with a guy who thinks income tax is theft.
ShowsOn, wind back the clock to May 2003 and tell me you could have predicted a global economic meltdown in 6 years time. Your criticism is idiotic nonsense.
Even so, the deficit has become so obscenely big by virtue of new commitments by Rudd and Swan. Which begs the question – if the budget is afflicted with a structural deficit, why commit to such enormous spending? If the answer is: the GFC….then why seek to blame Howard? Were they somehow more capable of using crystal balls than Swan?
Your entire argument is a quagmire of contradiction.
In the US, there are people who argue, apparently sincerely, that there is no law requiring the payment of income tax. I don’t mean that they think people shouldn’t have to pay tax; they say there is no law requiring the payment of income tax. According to them, there is a massive conspiracy by the Internal Revenue Service and other branches of the Federal Government to conceal this fact, because they want to collect the money even though they’ve no legal right to it. They have a variety of arguments to support this conclusion, which range from the pathetically daft to the tragically deranged. And one of these arguments is that the Internal Revenue Service calls the system ‘voluntary’. All this means is that it’s a system of what we call ‘self-assessment’.
As mentioned earlier his Howards unfunded tax cuts. Howard abolished the super scheme for the public service because of unfunded liabilities yet at the same time legislated a similar scheme for the rich. Unfunded tax cuts are the same as unfunded super.
As for cutting welfare I agree, means test the 30% health rebate, family tax benefits and toher welfare for the rich and means test it on gross, not net income. Also do away with the depreciation allowance for homes, gradually phase it out, it is just welfare for investors. Keep the negative gearing and CTG rebate, they can funtion well enough with that and we don’t need to crash house prices.
No 122
Showson, you’re at your verballing best again.
I said cut taxes in line with cutting welfare spending – i.e., eliminate inefficient churn (where the Government taketh with one hand and giveth back with another).
Part of the JOB of Government’s is to ASSESS risks of this sort, and to budget accordingly.
At a time a that company taxes was increasing, rather than cutting company taxes, the previous government used the money to cut income taxes and increase permanent hand outs.
If the previous government cut BUSINESS taxes instead, then we would have a much smaller deficit, and the new government wouldn’t have to try to get a heap of legislation to wide back handouts through the senate.
Incorrect. It is big because of the middle class welfare and income tax cuts that are PERMANENT. The two stimulus packages are TEMPORARY, so they won’t effect the budget in the out years.
No 124
Since when did the Catholic Church become your paragon of economic credibility? Give me a break.
Weren’t the Liberals paying tobacco growers not to grow tobacco, too?
No 132
ShowsOn, the previous government cut company taxes from 36% to 30%. Do keep up.
We can’t AFFORD any more income tax cuts! Even when the economy grows again which means fewer people receiving unemployment benefits, there will STILL be income tax cuts for everyone.
There is no way to make such income tax cuts and welfare tax cuts “revenue neutral”, because the number of welfare recipients is always changing.
GP
No strong feelings on your part about government support for primary industries?
WHAT! That was in 2000, before the mining boom even started!
Also they broke a promise on those, they agreed to tax family trusts as companies in order to offset the cost of cutting the business tax, but then conveniently forgot about doing so. Which of course was effectively another hand out.
GP 124: I was making an ethical point, not an economic one. I recall you saying you are of Italian background, so I assume you are a Catholic. I was giving you a suggestion for some reading on social ethics from a source you might take seriously.
GP unfortunately for your side the voting public is not stupid. The global recession would have restricted revenue just as much under a Lib government. A Lib government would have gone into deficit and debt. The amount of spending cuts that would have had to made to achieve otherwise would have been mindblowing.
Rawls, Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes argue different variations of the same thing with no reference to religion. Social contract theory is pervasive in moral thought.
No 125
There is an argument to be made for temporary assistance to new industries, i.e. tax breaks to attract investment.
However, I’m not of the view that continuous subsidy of industries which have no hope, except for some emotional attachment. Money would be much better spent investing in heavy retraining programs rather than propping up and industry that has no future beyond the next government assistance cheque. The car industry is one such industry.
Don’t suggest G.P. read something! It will ensure that he never reads it.
They probably would’ve used it as an excuse for WorkChoices Mark II.
No 139
I was raised a Catholic but I am, for all intents and purposes, atheist.
Like, for example, the Howard government’s subsidisation of the ethanol industry? Including a 50% tariff on ethanol imports?
GP
The Catholic Church is the world’s longest running multi-national business. It has rarely made a loss. It has immense global holdings of prime real estate, art and other valuables. It has a free cash flow that most multi-nationals would kill for. It has highly sophisticated corporate mechanisms for stop/losses should a particular church individual land them in the legal poo. It has a huge, dedicated, low-cost workforce. It gains huge subsidies from governments around the world.
It must know something about the business of money.
You either you are or you aren’t! I can hear your future wife:
Unless he is a member of an Italian Language Evangelical group (and yes they do exist).
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches/regions/north-america/united-states-of-america/international-evangelical-church.html
139 A pity you have thrown the bathwater out with the baby.
Centre
I’ll tell you another huge problem with the private vs public thing. Lots of people with private health insurance still use the public hospitals but they won’t use their private health insurance there. That means that their health fund doesn’t pay anything towards their stay. I helped look after a patient whose stay cost $250,000 and he had private insurance but didn’t sign on. The hospital was left with the bill rather than the health fund. Either way, the patient would have had no bills so it would make no difference to him.