Budget to cut tax breaks (1 Viewer)

[stazi]

source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23674116-2,00.html

THE Rudd government will cut $8 billion in tax breaks and incentives in Tuesday's budget as part of its strategy to curb inflation.
Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan is expected to argue that the previous coalition government gave too much taxpayer assistance to higher-income earners who did not need it.

The measures, to be presented as the most substantial reform of tax concessions in a decade, were worth $8 billion over four years, The Weekend Australian reports.

Mr Swan refused to disclose details of any cuts but again said that taxpayers deserved an equitable budget.

"Australian families who work hard and pay their fair share of taxes have every right to expect a tax system that is as efficient and as fair as possible," he told The Weekend Australian.

"People who get up and go to work and pay their taxes expect everyone to do the same."

The crackdown on tax concessions follows a razor-gang review of more than 300 so-called "tax expenditures" - the tax breaks and incentives that cost more than $51 billion in last year's federal budget.

 

[stazi]

wooo lack of economic knowledge ftw. how often has this mistake been made historically, though? the economy starts showing signs of recession, so you cut spending. this amounts to less money in the economy and the decline continues.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Two words.


Wayne Swan.


EDIT: His credibility has taken a nose dive anyway, ever since the question time incident with him not being able to explain a basic economic concept.

 

[stazi]

oh, could you elaborate? what exactly happened?

 

[withoutaface]

The best way to cut government expenditure would be to spend more money funding unnecessary HECS places.

 

[blue_chameleon]

oh, could you elaborate? what exactly happened?

Earlier in the year, during question time Malcolm Turnbull asked Swan about NAIRU (non-accelarating inflation rate of unemployment). Its a pretty basic concept taught in yr 12 economics. He refused to anser the question and looked obviously uncomfortable.

Turnbull and Joe Hockey then jeered at him etc, all the usual stuff that happens during question time. Best moment ever. He truly got pwned that day.

Seems like the man got his economics degree off the back of a cereal box.

Edit:http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/18/2165968.htm

 

[dieburndie]

wooo lack of economic knowledge ftw. how often has this mistake been made historically, though? the economy starts showing signs of recession, so you cut spending. this amounts to less money in the economy and the decline continues.

AFAIK, the economy isn't showing signs of recession. They are cutting spending because of the inflation resulting from economic growth.

Can you give an example of a government that has cut spending during a recession under the assumption in will help stimulate economic growth in some way?

The US federal reserve for example has cut interest rates repeatedly in an attempt to compensate for a downturn in the economy. I've never heard of the fiscal policy you are talking being implemented due to a recession.

I don't know why you are criticising others for a lack of economic knowledge.

 

[stazi]

AFAIK, the economy isn't showing signs of recession. They are cutting spending because of the inflation resulting from economic growth.

Can you give an example of a government that has cut spending during a recession under the assumption in will help stimulate economic growth in some way?

The US federal reserve for example has cut interest rates repeatedly in an attempt to compensate for a downturn in the economy. I've never heard of the fiscal policy you are talking being implemented due to a recession.

I don't know why you are criticising others for a lack of economic knowledge.

I can't be bothered finding specific examples, but governments have, in the past, cut spending because there isn't much money available (it seems logical on a smaller scale, but is wrong on a larger scale). then keynes stepped in and pwned people.

 

[Trampoline Man]

Earlier in the year, during question time Malcolm Turnbull asked Swan about NAIRU (non-accelarating inflation rate of unemployment). Its a pretty basic concept taught in yr 12 economics. He refused to anser the question and looked obviously uncomfortable.

Turnbull and Joe Hockey then jeered at him etc, all the usual stuff that happens during question time. Best moment ever. He truly got pwned that day.

Seems like the man got his economics degree off the back of a cereal box.

Edit:http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/18/2165968.htm

Do you do economics yourself? If you did, you should probably understand that it's a huge political liability to give the idea that you take the NAIRU seriously.

Just take a look at Turnbull's followup question:

"If the Treasurer regards that rate to be higher than 4.1 per cent, how many Australian jobs does he believe should be sacrificed to achieve it?"

It's clearly designed to make it look like Swan intends to cut jobs to fight inflation. Giving a straight answer would have been a tremendous own goal.

Notice Turnbull afterwards didn't bother mentioning exactly what the NAIRU is today, or how many jobs need to be sacrificed for it. Does that show he didn't know the numbers himself?

 

[GinoIs]

Fuckers are making my dream car more expensive.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23679619-29277,00.html?from=public_rss

Looks like I won't be owning an Audi RS4 anytime soon

 

[Iron]

lol it would be suicide for them to revoke the 30billion election promise. It's ruled out.

 

[banco55]

Do you do economics yourself? If you did, you should probably understand that it's a huge political liability to give the idea that you take the NAIRU seriously.

Just take a look at Turnbull's followup question:

"If the Treasurer regards that rate to be higher than 4.1 per cent, how many Australian jobs does he believe should be sacrificed to achieve it?"

It's clearly designed to make it look like Swan intends to cut jobs to fight inflation. Giving a straight answer would have been a tremendous own goal.

Notice Turnbull afterwards didn't bother mentioning exactly what the NAIRU is today, or how many jobs need to be sacrificed for it. Does that show he didn't know the numbers himself?

Politicians can just rely on the reserve bank to raise interest rates (and get people thrown out of work) to lower the inflation rate.

 

[Trampoline Man]

Politicians can just rely on the reserve bank to raise interest rates (and get people thrown out of work) to lower the inflation rate.

And the government gets blamed for its actions, no matter how necessary they are.

 

[banco55]

And the government gets blamed for its actions, no matter how necessary they are.

That's because the average voter is economically illiterate.

 

[Besodeiah]

No, Tramp Man likes to start his day with a hit of Ethylene Glycol so he can then hook himself up to the ethanol IV drip. Coz thats what hardcore cunts do.

 

[chicky_pie]

I don't get why they're taxing brand new cars that are over $57,000? Wouldn't that increase the prices of all cars as well? And who said cars over $57,000 are all luxury? I didn't know a brand new Toyota Hilux were a luxury car, lol.

 

[incentivation]

Seems like the man got his economics degree off the back of a cereal box.

He holds a BA, which would explain why he knows little in the way of economics, and lectured in public administration at the Queensland Institute.

http://www.alumni.uq.edu.au/wayne-swan

 

[incentivation]

I don't get why they're taxing brand new cars that are over $57,000? Wouldn't that increase the prices of all cars as well? And who said cars over $57,000 are all luxury? I didn't know a brand new Toyota Hilux were a luxury car, lol.

The very fact that we still have a protectionist approach to the car industry is ludicrous. These 'luxury cars' are generally more efficient, of higher quality and higher safety standards.

 

[Besodeiah]

Where the crap did the rest of this thread go?

 

[Besodeiah]

Fuck you mods are seriously starting to borderline on very, very shit.

Oh. So I see you moved the posts. Still very gay.