What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The 2014/15 Off Season Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,178
We went from nearly zero to 11% in order to avoid a technical recession and wasted plenty of money on insulation and other unnecessary window dressing,

Wasted? We avoided recession, while many other developed countries didn't.

Suity
 

T.S Quint

Coach
Messages
14,900
Too many mixed messages coming out of Canberra.

Ask the LNP, Alan Jones etc and we're 6 months away from Greece with their debt, deficit and intergenerational theft slogans.

Economists are now saying that the economy needs a boost, with an injection of cash. Plus they are saying that because cash is so cheap now, we'd be crazy not to borrow a $squintillion and start building a shit load of infrastructure. The investment of infrastructure and education has a huge flow on effect to our economy, they say.

Who's right ? I take the word of economists over Hockey. MY cynical opinion is that they are trying to force ideological change under the guise of austerity.

Hmmmm.....who to believe - economists or Alan Jones.

Tough one. :crazy:
 

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,978
H9KKzp.jpg

We do need to be careful though, just because we are better than a lot of Euro countries (by % of GDP) isn't neccessarily a goal.

imf-chart-change-real-expenditure-data.png


The above graph projects us as being in some trouble, and the following graph can be used as an explanatory guide to Suity's graph (and it is old, and has got worse)

qp36w3s8-1365426171.jpg


You can see that just perhaps there is a cause there for concern, and a reason to do something about the problem.
Those advocating borrowing 'cheap money' and investing in infrastructure are essentially suggesting a gamble on a return: it is essentially the same thing that so many Super Funds were doing as they borrowed money to invest in the stockmarket - all good while things are rosy, but if it suddenly doesn't pan out the way you hoped, you've put all your eggs in a flimsy basket (or in the Super Fund cases, all OUR money.... :( )

The investing in infrastructure thing does make sense, but it still doesn't mean the govt should be pissing money up against the wall.
 
Messages
19,413
Here we go again.......

Yep, over the short to medium term we do need to fix the structural imbalance between govt revenues and expenditures.

No, we didn't need to go as hard in one hit as proposed by the current govt in last year's budget (and, in fact, it was economically as well as politically misguided to go so hard in one hit).
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,178
Here we go again.......

Yep, over the short to medium term we do need to fix the structural imbalance between govt revenues and expenditures.

No, we didn't need to go as hard in one hit as proposed by the current govt in last year's budget (and, in fact, it was economically as well as politically misguided to go so hard in one hit).

They were trying to keep an election promise - a promise they very well new they could not keep, therefore they went hard in the first budget hoping all the shit would blow over by the time of the next election.
Fail.
 

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,978
Here we go again.......

Yep, over the short to medium term we do need to fix the structural imbalance between govt revenues and expenditures.

No, we didn't need to go as hard in one hit as proposed by the current govt in last year's budget (and, in fact, it was economically as well as politically misguided to go so hard in one hit).

Have we even gone anywhere with what they suggested :lol:

Seems like their paperwork is still lodged with the senate and going nowhere. I can't understand why (a) they went so hard, and (b) why they are being so stubborn about it....
Makes no sense to me!

I just hate the discourse of 'we don't have a problem at all' - let's at least be honest that we need to do SOMETHING (but perhaps a surcharge on public restrooms isn't the way to go... [note: that's not real, it's a comment on how petty some things seem])
 
Messages
19,413
They were trying to keep an election promise - a promise they very well new they could not keep, therefore they went hard in the first budget hoping all the shit would blow over by the time of the next election.
Fail.

True, but I think it goes further than that. They were a bunch of Young Liberals (Young Labour, Young Communists whatever) let loose with their ideological toys for the first time. The carried on like they'd been opposition for 15 years and had never had their hands on the levers.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
78,051
Heather Ridout (reserve bank board) on Q&A the other night. She said that we had to address shit, but did not join Alan Jones's chorus of disaster.

She in fact encouraged borrowing cheap cash and investing in the future. She was not concerned about "debt" but moreso revenue. She said that investment in the future would resolve the revenue shortfalls in due time.
 

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,978
Heather Ridout (reserve bank board) on Q&A the other night. She said that we had to address shit, but did not join Alan Jones's chorus of disaster.

She in fact encouraged borrowing cheap cash and investing in the future. She was not concerned about "debt" but moreso revenue. She said that investment in the future would resolve the revenue shortfalls in due time.

Unless it doesn't!
The only thing that makes me nervous is that this is the game we just finished playing that lead to the GFC...
I'm all for 'cheap debt', but economists have been wrong on these things in the (recent) past - worth being wary isn't it?
 

Joshuatheeel

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
20,193
Yes we do have a budget problem which needs to be fixed. The problem is the governments policies/budget is all directed to one segment of society.

Why cut Newstart / make it harder for the unemployed yet let retires with residential homes worth over a million dollars get the pension

Why bring in the Medicare co payment yet let investors negatively gear investment properties.

Why talk about lowering the minimum wage yet let retires draw their super tax free

Why focus on people on a disability pension yet do nothing to stop tax minimisation of the wealthy using trusts or large corporations transfer profits off shore.

Why do they want a free market system for tertiary education, but don't want a ETS for companies and actually pay them to stop poluting.

If the government can't see that their policies arent fair, they have some serious issues
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
78,051
Unless it doesn't!
The only thing that makes me nervous is that this is the game we just finished playing that lead to the GFC...
I'm all for 'cheap debt', but economists have been wrong on these things in the (recent) past - worth being wary isn't it?

Well you've got to trust someone. Who do you want to trust ? Someone like her with decades of experience in global economies or Abbott, Hockey & Cormann ?
 

Noise

Coach
Messages
18,236
Yes we do have a budget problem which needs to be fixed. The problem is the governments policies/budget is all directed to one segment of society.

Why cut Newstart / make it harder for the unemployed yet let retires with residential homes worth over a million dollars get the pension

Why bring in the Medicare co payment yet let investors negatively gear investment properties.

Why talk about lowering the minimum wage yet let retires draw their super tax free

Why focus on people on a disability pension yet do nothing to stop tax minimisation of the wealthy using trusts or large corporations transfer profits off shore.

Why do they want a free market system for tertiary education, but don't want a ETS for companies and actually pay them to stop poluting.

If the government can't see that their policies arent fair, they have some serious issues

I agree with some of ur points but not the pensioners with a million dollar house not getting a pension. A million dollar house is not much these days. On the northern beaches a million dollars gets u block of land and a knock down. If an elderly couple who have just paid off there standard 3-4 bedroom house in Sydney (that is worth around a million dollars) with not much in super, what are they to do? Should they be forced to sell their home and move out west into a two bedroom apartment forgetting the fact they have been paying off their home for 30-40 years, just so they can afford to live?
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
79,051
Well you've got to trust someone. Who do you want to trust ? Someone like her with decades of experience in global economies or Abbott, Hockey & Cormann ?

I trust Pou. Where is he? What does he think


(I actually do trust him)
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
78,051
Yeah me too. I'd have him as PM only he'd call us constituents idiots all the time.
 

Joshuatheeel

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
20,193
I agree with some of ur points but not the pensioners with a million dollar house not getting a pension. A million dollar house is not much these days. On the northern beaches a million dollars gets u block of land and a knock down. If an elderly couple who have just paid off there standard 3-4 bedroom house in Sydney (that is worth around a million dollars) with not much in super, what are they to do? Should they be forced to sell their home and move out west into a two bedroom apartment forgetting the fact they have been paying off their home for 30-40 years, just so they can afford to live?

I can see your point and there aren't any perfect system.

But my question is should the Country be paying someone a pension if they have an asset worth $3-4 million? Maybe pay them the pension and on death the country has a claim on their estate for a certain amount.

Also people have choices to make in their working life to. What about the example of a person/couple who has a property worth $500k and super of $500k ( they made the decision to put money in super rather focusing on their home) - this person/couple in the current system gets less pension then the person with a $3-4million home.
 

Noise

Coach
Messages
18,236
A $3-4 million house is very different to a $1 million house. But as you said there will always be flaws in the system.

As for ur second point, that person/couple should have done their financial research into assets and pensions and what would be best for their future. If there are rules/laws in place you need to act accordingly. It's no one else's fault if you dont invest in your best interests. (Though when governments change the rules it can/will f**k everyone up)
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
79,051
you should never penalise someone for the house they live in .... if they worked hard to buy it or got lucky with the rise of house prices then good luck to them

i also don't think super taken as an allocated pension over time should be taxed - good on you for looking after yourself after retirement

I also think there is a place for encouraging people to have investment properties


but f**k me dead, I cannot understand the tax evasion via trusts etc - thats just f**ked up shit
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,178
you should never penalise someone for the house they live in .... if they worked hard to buy it or got lucky with the rise of house prices then good luck to them

i also don't think super taken as an allocated pension over time should be taxed - good on you for looking after yourself after retirement

I also think there is a place for encouraging people to have investment properties


but f**k me dead, I cannot understand the tax evasion via trusts etc - thats just f**ked up shit

Couldn't agree more on all points.

Suity
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top