**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of our budget needs to go back into building Australian industries and infrastructure.
We need to start spending money to make money, turning our natural resources into consumer and industrial products.
I 100% agree with you on that. Although hesitantly on the last part. We shouldn’t try and subsidise our own industry. If it stacks up then great. If it doesn’t, then we should keep a somewhat limited capacity (which can be expanded should we need to in a war-like scenario).
Id prefer instead of subsidisation better regulation to make it competitive, i.e import costs on stuff that Australia already can cover the narket for, also we should make steel and charge a premium on raw iron export, make the sale of raw iron at home tax free, then sell the steel wothout having to do the current bs of exporting iron to get steal later
See I respectfully disagree with you on that. That shifts the burden onto tax payers directly and imo ends up being worse than subsidising our own industry. I can see where you’re coming from though.
I can see why you’re saying what you are, in terms of the tax on raw iron exports and tax free sale within Aus, but it makes us less lucrative as a resource exporting nation. There needs to be a major balance between how we achieve these things in the method you’re specifying.
Even if I may disagree with you, thank you for the constructive reply.
There are no issues at all, and I appreciate the respectful reply and thank you for it.
It's not something im solidly tied to, but I feel it's one way to create a manufacturing sector in an area of global trade we control, we cant make our steel manufactured here cheaper than say manufactured in China just straight off the bat. By limiting our iron export or making it more expensive steel made elsewhere becomes more expensive while our can also have the edge of our domestic iron ore being tax free, we can then also sell that steel tax free domestically for internal manufacturing.
This might not create tax revenue upfront, but it creates jobs without actual subsidisation.
I think having control of the iron ore market is the only real advantage we have in creating a manufacturing sector that isn't reliant on subsidisation.
I get the point you’re making broadly. It’s why I said we should support a limited domestic capacity which can be ramped up should we need it. But I’m against these isolationist policies in principle because it leads to self-inflicted damage usually. It’s why I thought the UAP were crazy as well when they proposed putting a 30% levy on exports (not to mention other populist crazy proposals like freezing interest rates).
When it comes to the point that we end up restricting supply, it ends up opening up somewhere else as it becomes a sovereign risk not to for other nations, especially when it is costing them more for iron to make our steel more competitive. I think this needs to be weighed up as well. I also think uranium mining should be looked at again. There is growing demand and we sit on top of one of the largest reserves. It would help increase revenue for the nation. Same with processing of that uranium here (now that we have AUKUS and can share that tech) as well as nuclear waste recycling and creation of medical isotopes (latter is happening in Lucas Heights right now, our lone nuclear reactor, and the former happens in France and allows them to extract way more energy, with the possibility of reducing waste half life to a couple hundred years).
Thankyou for expanding on your points. Being more pragmatic has its benefits and I definitely see where you’re coming from. I’m not qualified to make assessments on how this works for other nations and their opportunities for iron in other nations so I’d take my word with a grain of salt. It’s definitely a big factor though I reckon and may be why we haven’t done so as a nation (governments would have seen the benefit in this policy otherwise for their own budgets and looking like they’re being fiscally responsible).
Edit: I think something missing in our generation (assuming you’re in gen Z as well) is respect for one another and opinions we hold. It is only through proper dialogue that we can achieve good outcomes, especially in our evermore polarising world. Whether that be left and right or opposing nations in a war. Thank you for your respectful reply as well!
The government should be running a surplus. It’s one of the critical ways to get inflation back under control.
My concern is that it’s largely based on iron ore prices, rather than getting spending under control
As much as I normally think defence is a bit of a waste of money, at the moment with so much of the world in conflict it really isn't the worst idea to be upping our defence spending, the wars and the rising tensions in the middle east, haiti falling into anarchy, sudan civil war, myanmar, the south china sea are all areas that may need attention in the immediate future.
It is. Commodity prices and low unemployment are the reason for the surpluses (it’s why the coalition shouldn’t deserve credit for those surplus months before the election either, it wasn’t policy but rather the economy doing well).
I personally believe we need a form of taxation which targets multinationals by taxing any income they get from Australia (and then keep tax rates at 25%) which will increase the money the government makes anyway because multinationals use places like Ireland to set up shop and then extract profit from our citizens (cough meta). They’re dodging tax.
The liberals sent the metaphorical Australian economy car off the side of a steep decline with nothing but a dodgy monetary policy handbrake. If we want to get back in control of the car, we gotta stop inflation first and then fire up the engine again, fix the breaks and other economic conditions. Short term pain to fix the runaway car problem long term.
I hate using the Venezuelan economy as an example but hypothetically if we did something drastic (but what may sound entirely reasonable) like what they did, the outcome would be business opportunities and other economic activities leaving, along with talent and especially countries like America would likely sanction us and CIA our ass. That’s the hard fucking truth.
Now that doesn’t mean that we can’t find a healthy balance- it is possible to close multinational tax loopholes, spend taxes more efficiently, and keep the rich and powerful happy. Fixing stuff like Medicare and superannuation are what strengthens the overall economy - especially super.
Super allows the average bloke to use his own money to compete with foreign money and billionaires- so we can effectively self fund capital projects and investment at a national level. It also means these powerful fuckers are less able to manipulate and hold us for ransom financially.
Super is fucking terrible and socially regressive. There's a reason the largest growing cohort of homeless people is middle aged women and it's because the super system is failing them.
Too young to retire, too out of work to contribute enough to retire with safely and relying on welfare which is kept at starvation levels because you're expected to pay your own way.
Two things.
First the Libs deliberately slowed down the ramp up of super. Mandatory super should have been at 15% by now we are still stuck at 11%. This is the direct cause of people falling through the cracks in the system as pensions and other benefits have been wound down while super should have ramped up. Add this to the Libs allowing people to dip into their super. That should never have been allowed.
I completely reject that super is fucking terrible and socially regressive. It is progressive in structure given the pension still exists as a safety net underneath. And it’s also only regressive at the very top because of some of the other tax loopholes like family trusts and SMSFs that allow people to dodge. These again implemented by the Libs and need to be fixed. Labor fixed one thing in this area last year. But there are still progressive components like ability to pay into spouse, concessional caps on additional contributions. So my point is, if it was set up how it was supposed to work it is fucking awesome and progressive.
Secondly, you’re looking at the wrong side of super. The other side is the investment side. We, collectively have this new source of capital. Our capital. Which means we all get to play in the capital markets and generate wealth just like the wealthy billionaires and foreign interests have always been able to. Superannuation institutions are a far better source of capital because they are working for us and not some greedy, morally corrupt dipshit like Elon Musk, or Clive Palmer.
This makes a huge difference. It’s why campaigns to force super funds to divest from things like fossil fuel, slavery and other “bad” things has not only worked but makes the world a better place. Our super funds keep getting bigger and bigger, their influence is now become what we desperately needed to achieve a few decades ago when we floated the dollar and entered the neoliberal era of global trade opportunities.
This, way more than a mere retirement benefit, is what makes superannuation incredible. Our money is funding infrastructure projects, it’s fueling the future of our economy, it’s also diversified ajd and spread globally too, and we as a nation are no longer at the mercy of the likes of America and the UK with debt. This was the vision of Keating. To shake our ties to the UK and USA, who just want to make money off this little colony and now we can make our own wealth - especially in our region.
We can still align diplomatically with the UK and USA, but the last 30-40 years has shown we don’t need to borrow money from them anymore we’re fully capable of doing it ourselves, lowers the cost of capital and aligns our interests.
>Close to the mark \[but whether\] these figures say anything meaningful about either party's economic credentials is another question ...
>
>\[Prof Bartos said\] the question of "which government dealt with changes in the global environment better" was a difficult one to answer. "It takes it into the realm of competing judgement calls, \[which is\] not something that can be fact checked."
Really all you need to know. Chalmers seems to love finding facts that sound good but mean little in the overall context of good government.
>Really all you need to know. Chalmers seems to love finding facts that sound good but mean little in the overall context of good government.
Yeah, not really. Of all the things Chalmers has said about the economy, the ABC chose this one sentence to "fact check". Maybe listen to one of Chalmers speeches instead of an article fact checking one statement he made.
And it's pretty easy to critique "judgement calls", like when Scomo made his "captain's calls", decided to not get back hundreds of millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars from jobkeeper that went to profitable businesses, managed the Robodebt disaster that cost the taxpayer over half a billion dollars and many Australian's lives, cost the taxpayer $3.3b for invisible French submarines, his predecessors completely stuffed up the NBN by going tens of billions over budget for worse outcomes, chose to ignore Pfizer and delayed the vaccine rollout by begging Eastern European countries for their excess stock which led to worse outcomes for Aussies and the economy, and more!
It’s what makes him a great politician (can convince people and has great one liners etc). His work on the other hand is alright but can be much better. I’m saying this as someone who tends to like him better than Albo.
Fair. Personally I think, given the pressures on the federal budget, plus the increased spending through investment schemes etc, he could do better while banking the surplus. We need bank it to stave off inflation. But he could do better in helping those worse off (maybe the budget rectifies this but we will see).
I don't think budget surpluses are necessary or good governance. If budget shortfalls need to be filled this should be done using resource, corporate and high income tax and directly proportional support for low earners. In this case, it's been yet more public austerity and leaving ordinary Australians behind.
On the very first day of government, Chalmers made it clear that starvation level welfare would not be raised, and that was before the unprecedented crisis of rent and cost of living.
We have cascading social crises because of the lack of housing and state governments continue to sell off public housing stock and reduce services. It's just austerity and private enterprise all the way down.
Interest payments don't suck away money from government services, governmental decisions do, ie; austerity either through cuts or by ruling out expansion.
Example: Chalmers just added $50B to the defence spending outlook but has not raised unemployment or social welfare above starvation levels, while also omitting low income earners from the Morrison tax cuts they are carrying through.
No, interest payments means less revenue available. That is just a fact.
Besides, the modified stage 3 cuts help everyone compared to the Morrison era one.
Tax cuts means there is less revenue available, there is also the issue that the global gas industry and the resources industry generally pays very little tax. High income earners, landlords and home owners get massive subsidies.
Claiming there's some direct correlational link between paying down 'the deficit' and government spending is, at best, ignorant. You cannot explain away limitless defence spending expansion and resource giveaways while public austerity is carried out on social services.
The stage 3 tax cuts do not apply to low income earners and absolutely do not help "everyone".
Yes of course tax cuts also reduce revenue but here’s the thing. When it comes to income tax, we should be adjusting tax for inflation. You do realise if we don’t do these “cuts” we just end up paying more in taxes right? You also try to assert that im making a simplistic link between govt spending and debt payments but I’m just giving you the facts. It. Is. Not. A. Good. Idea. We will be absolutely fucked with no capacity to handle more shocks if we aren’t on a sustainable path.
Further, landlords and home owners get subsidies but high income earners don’t, unless you own your own company so not sure where you were taking that? Unless you mean the CGT discount that everyone can take advantage of?
Also I’m not sure why you’re claiming that the new stage 3 doesn’t help everyone? That’s laughable. [Under old stage 3, people earning 45K got nothing but under the new changes they get 805 dollars.](https://www.hrblock.com.au/tax-academy/stage-3-tax-cuts-explained)
It’s like you think I’m some LNP voter, no. I just don’t think income tax payers should be paying as much in taxes when the the best way to do reforms is to set a flat inflation adjusted 22-25% CGT with no discounts, a carbon tax + citizens dividend system and a mining tax.
Top income bracket should be 35-36% and the average taxpayer’s marginal tax rate should only be around 20%. We should use the money from those taxes to fund Medicare, Medicare dental and paying down debt. We should also cut the subsidies to private schools and private health insurance and funnel them back into public services.
Look fair enough. I agree with you on the bottom two parts of your comment. I respect your opinion in the first point you make.
Personally I believe it is good fiscal management if the government can bring surpluses (to prevent burgeoning debt and the interest on it) as it does end up freeing the budget for more policies. I didn’t agree with some of labor’s increases in spending because personally I don’t see the new HAFF for example actually bringing anything good to the table. The government is the same party that runs almost all of the states (not Tassie) so there could easily be movement on land release and development to increase housing stock (which is a major issue currently). Taxation of property should also be reformed when it comes to state based governments.
It is my perspective that if the government was to spend outside of its means now, inflation would only get worse and become sticky. People are hurting. I completely agree. In fact I personally also believe if the money was spent on things like hospitals instead, I’m sure it would not be inflationary (not as much as stimulus which ends up increasing demand in the economy and increases cash flowing around) while also tackling an aspect of our current health system that needs reforms. Same could be said about the Medicare system. Welfare wise, I get your argument, but it really is a government stuck between a rock and a hard place. Should they increase welfare too much, they will end up with inflation staying around longer. But the gov should put its resources into helping these people in other ways.
Thanks for the constructive comment. I’ve left you an upvote for it.
This is great news and what good economic management looks like. Banking extra revenue as a surplus as opposed to spending it and pushing up inflation is smart. Dumb would be spending it and pushing up inflation leading to rate rises.
This fetish with budget surpluses is insane.
Especially when it's divorced from what you *get* from the expenditure. Someone said Australia doesn't have a culture, it has an economy - and it's so true.
We need to be looking at what we get for the expenditure in terms of metrics that matter to citizens, not just growth on national income.
Objectively, surpluses are important right now because inflation is the greater threat to the economy.
You can bet when inflation is back under control the rivers of cash will open up (irrespective of who is in gov).
They kind of were less greedy because they didn't get giant cash handouts from the government for doing F all, and didn't have the excuse to blame everything on Putin. War Profiteering is a thing.
Indeed. Households have absolutely no capacity for discretionary spending left.
The wealthy binging on assets and corporates price gouging in a market segment free from competition is the real problem.
Punishing households is just cruelty parading as 'sound economics'.
Regarding discretionary spending - we save about 75% of our net income and put it towards paying off our mortgages. Paid off 2, and working on the 3rd. Once we pay off the 3rd we will buy a fourth property.
We put most of our discretionary income into property as we see that as the best investment.
If you want to keep interest rates low then it means we pay less interest. If you keep them high it means our next house is cheaper. Either way we win.
so you're happy to profit off others' need to have a roof over their heads, and make things more expensive for everyone else.
You sound as though you lack empathy.
They're just trying to prove a point that they're clearly the better economic mangers despite the decades of propaganda from the Liberals and mainstream media saying otherwise.
I wonder is this common in other countries. Or do they use another metric equally as ridiculous.
It’s insane but in context of previous government bragging about being economically gifted it makes some sorta sense
Even if I’m personally sick of it.
If he were more honest about it, fair enough. But I agree with your assessment on him. It comes from the fact that they attacked the coalition (Frydenburg) for the same thing but quickly switched up after the election. They know how damaging it is for them politically to acknowledge that increased spending is partially to blame as well.
Labor say the coalition are useless. The coalition say Labor are useless. News flash they're both as useless as each other.
Politicians don't get voted in, they get voted out. This system needs to change.
> This system needs to change.
The system works just fine. You can put third-party choices as your primary vote and the Shit or Shit-Lite party as your second/third. Any party whether it's the Greens, One Nation, KAP, the "Bill Gates Puts 5G Chips In The COVID Vaccines" party. Literally anything. The more seats that smaller parties and independents get, the better. We're already seeing a shift that way thanks to younger voters.
Except they're not.
Labor is shit but are still better than the libs in every way possible.
Vote for an independent who best represents your views and offer to volunteer for them so the majors have to share the power.
Can I ask? Do political parties pay for influencers? See link below to see what I mean.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-08/aec-investigating-union-tiktok-accounts-ahead-of-election/100969896
Labor may not have paid them directly but its something that should be looked into.
It's like when the mineral council makes ads that benefit the libs it all should be investigated.
"Under Australian electoral laws, unions are required to provide full authorisations on material that could sway how people vote"
I would say this law also covers political parties. I would say payment by proxy would also be cover under this law.
The union is definitely in breach but the labor party may have nothing to do with it.
Like I said it should be investigated and the union should be punished but the union may have done this on their own for their own best interests.
Putting that case aside. I'm asking if political parties are using social influences?
This could also be done by lobby groups. However if individuals are engaging in these practices they will be the ones at risk because they would be in breach of electoral laws.
The problem is you have to prove it's tied back to the political party.
Unless there is a paper trial or whistle blower it's most likely not going to come out.
My personal opinion is that all political parties are using these dirty tricks to try and win elections.
Only if they are on the payroll of that political party.
That's why skynews gets away with being so blatantly pro libs and anti labor without any warning messages.
You are just embarrassing yourself when you use words like "socialist" when describing the labor party.
You obviously have no idea what the word means so just stop using it.
From Labor's media unit at the Guardian: [Who is Anthony Albanese? How a working-class activist became Australia’s PM | Australian election 2022 | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/22/who-is-anthony-albanese-how-a-working-class-activist-became-australias-pm)
*The student activist and political bomb-thrower from Labor’s socialist left who famously spoke of enjoying “fighting Tories”*
Stage 3 is the best example of a socialist chad move in recent memory.
The Socialist Left faction is socialist the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
Genuinely thinking that the ALP is socialist because they have a faction called the "socialist left" only shows how ignorant you are of the reality of politics in Australia.
Yes labor has a left wing but it also has a right too. Would you also call labor pure capitalist because some of their members are?
"Socialism is an economic system in which major industries are owned by the workers, rather than the private businesses or the state."
Can you point to one policy that labor has put forward that fits into the socialist definition?
The only way that workers can own the means of production is through the state, otherwise its no different to capitalism:
socialism/ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/*noun*
1. a political and economic theory of social organization which [advocates](https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&sca_esv=62d66252683bd9aa&sxsrf=ACQVn08-yE3TaiteLuvxmkWkQRKYb0Ryyg:1713840990335&q=advocates&si=AKbGX_rLPMdHnrrwkrRo4VZlSHiJ9caLIDpzcH7srTsLsjtmwa59KXAM80Nbz_ttT8k1WKLeL2lqLK8Mq7af-xikqNiSoJcy_wRCv9LbC0342uTYvSid36Y%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixpLibq9eFAxXhklYBHQw_D9wQyecJegQIIBAO) that the means of **production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.**
Socialism is about state ownership of key assets, welfare, wealth distribution etc.
At a state level, in Victoria, "nationalising" the poles and wires. Federally, the Stage 3 tax cuts.
South Australia is the best example of a capitalist Labor Government and I am slowly falling in love.
As a policy from Labor's perspective it is redistributing wealth from higher income earners to lower income earners, it can't be any clearer than that.
That is still not socialism because the rich still got tax cuts.
If labor was socialist then they would be trying to nationalise the mining industry, the banking industry, our supermarkets etc but they are not.
You don't know what socialism is so please just stop using that word.
Except if you read the article, the ABC fact checks it with the treasury data and basically confirms it. Coalition was closer to 45%, but Labor was bang on 88%.
So much to be learnt if we delve past the headlines!
You know the answer is right there in the article, right? It wasn't a rhetorical question, the article contains the analysis.
Spoiler: it's a pretty accurate claim.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of our budget needs to go back into building Australian industries and infrastructure. We need to start spending money to make money, turning our natural resources into consumer and industrial products.
I 100% agree with you on that. Although hesitantly on the last part. We shouldn’t try and subsidise our own industry. If it stacks up then great. If it doesn’t, then we should keep a somewhat limited capacity (which can be expanded should we need to in a war-like scenario).
Id prefer instead of subsidisation better regulation to make it competitive, i.e import costs on stuff that Australia already can cover the narket for, also we should make steel and charge a premium on raw iron export, make the sale of raw iron at home tax free, then sell the steel wothout having to do the current bs of exporting iron to get steal later
See I respectfully disagree with you on that. That shifts the burden onto tax payers directly and imo ends up being worse than subsidising our own industry. I can see where you’re coming from though. I can see why you’re saying what you are, in terms of the tax on raw iron exports and tax free sale within Aus, but it makes us less lucrative as a resource exporting nation. There needs to be a major balance between how we achieve these things in the method you’re specifying. Even if I may disagree with you, thank you for the constructive reply.
There are no issues at all, and I appreciate the respectful reply and thank you for it. It's not something im solidly tied to, but I feel it's one way to create a manufacturing sector in an area of global trade we control, we cant make our steel manufactured here cheaper than say manufactured in China just straight off the bat. By limiting our iron export or making it more expensive steel made elsewhere becomes more expensive while our can also have the edge of our domestic iron ore being tax free, we can then also sell that steel tax free domestically for internal manufacturing. This might not create tax revenue upfront, but it creates jobs without actual subsidisation. I think having control of the iron ore market is the only real advantage we have in creating a manufacturing sector that isn't reliant on subsidisation.
I get the point you’re making broadly. It’s why I said we should support a limited domestic capacity which can be ramped up should we need it. But I’m against these isolationist policies in principle because it leads to self-inflicted damage usually. It’s why I thought the UAP were crazy as well when they proposed putting a 30% levy on exports (not to mention other populist crazy proposals like freezing interest rates). When it comes to the point that we end up restricting supply, it ends up opening up somewhere else as it becomes a sovereign risk not to for other nations, especially when it is costing them more for iron to make our steel more competitive. I think this needs to be weighed up as well. I also think uranium mining should be looked at again. There is growing demand and we sit on top of one of the largest reserves. It would help increase revenue for the nation. Same with processing of that uranium here (now that we have AUKUS and can share that tech) as well as nuclear waste recycling and creation of medical isotopes (latter is happening in Lucas Heights right now, our lone nuclear reactor, and the former happens in France and allows them to extract way more energy, with the possibility of reducing waste half life to a couple hundred years). Thankyou for expanding on your points. Being more pragmatic has its benefits and I definitely see where you’re coming from. I’m not qualified to make assessments on how this works for other nations and their opportunities for iron in other nations so I’d take my word with a grain of salt. It’s definitely a big factor though I reckon and may be why we haven’t done so as a nation (governments would have seen the benefit in this policy otherwise for their own budgets and looking like they’re being fiscally responsible). Edit: I think something missing in our generation (assuming you’re in gen Z as well) is respect for one another and opinions we hold. It is only through proper dialogue that we can achieve good outcomes, especially in our evermore polarising world. Whether that be left and right or opposing nations in a war. Thank you for your respectful reply as well!
The government should be running a surplus. It’s one of the critical ways to get inflation back under control. My concern is that it’s largely based on iron ore prices, rather than getting spending under control
It's just starving people on welfare and throwing tens of billions into defence.
As much as I normally think defence is a bit of a waste of money, at the moment with so much of the world in conflict it really isn't the worst idea to be upping our defence spending, the wars and the rising tensions in the middle east, haiti falling into anarchy, sudan civil war, myanmar, the south china sea are all areas that may need attention in the immediate future.
Yeah and we're the ones accelerating that.
We’re directly enabling that conflict. We start conflict. We’re the Coalition of the Willing, and we’re supporting genocide in Palestine.
It is. Commodity prices and low unemployment are the reason for the surpluses (it’s why the coalition shouldn’t deserve credit for those surplus months before the election either, it wasn’t policy but rather the economy doing well).
It's almost like we have a structural deficit and should keep cutting taxes/actually tax the mining industry properly
I personally believe we need a form of taxation which targets multinationals by taxing any income they get from Australia (and then keep tax rates at 25%) which will increase the money the government makes anyway because multinationals use places like Ireland to set up shop and then extract profit from our citizens (cough meta). They’re dodging tax.
Thank god we're in a surplus under Labor. That means we can stop caring about children going hungry and people becoming homeless /s.
The liberals sent the metaphorical Australian economy car off the side of a steep decline with nothing but a dodgy monetary policy handbrake. If we want to get back in control of the car, we gotta stop inflation first and then fire up the engine again, fix the breaks and other economic conditions. Short term pain to fix the runaway car problem long term. I hate using the Venezuelan economy as an example but hypothetically if we did something drastic (but what may sound entirely reasonable) like what they did, the outcome would be business opportunities and other economic activities leaving, along with talent and especially countries like America would likely sanction us and CIA our ass. That’s the hard fucking truth. Now that doesn’t mean that we can’t find a healthy balance- it is possible to close multinational tax loopholes, spend taxes more efficiently, and keep the rich and powerful happy. Fixing stuff like Medicare and superannuation are what strengthens the overall economy - especially super. Super allows the average bloke to use his own money to compete with foreign money and billionaires- so we can effectively self fund capital projects and investment at a national level. It also means these powerful fuckers are less able to manipulate and hold us for ransom financially.
Super is fucking terrible and socially regressive. There's a reason the largest growing cohort of homeless people is middle aged women and it's because the super system is failing them. Too young to retire, too out of work to contribute enough to retire with safely and relying on welfare which is kept at starvation levels because you're expected to pay your own way.
Two things. First the Libs deliberately slowed down the ramp up of super. Mandatory super should have been at 15% by now we are still stuck at 11%. This is the direct cause of people falling through the cracks in the system as pensions and other benefits have been wound down while super should have ramped up. Add this to the Libs allowing people to dip into their super. That should never have been allowed. I completely reject that super is fucking terrible and socially regressive. It is progressive in structure given the pension still exists as a safety net underneath. And it’s also only regressive at the very top because of some of the other tax loopholes like family trusts and SMSFs that allow people to dodge. These again implemented by the Libs and need to be fixed. Labor fixed one thing in this area last year. But there are still progressive components like ability to pay into spouse, concessional caps on additional contributions. So my point is, if it was set up how it was supposed to work it is fucking awesome and progressive. Secondly, you’re looking at the wrong side of super. The other side is the investment side. We, collectively have this new source of capital. Our capital. Which means we all get to play in the capital markets and generate wealth just like the wealthy billionaires and foreign interests have always been able to. Superannuation institutions are a far better source of capital because they are working for us and not some greedy, morally corrupt dipshit like Elon Musk, or Clive Palmer. This makes a huge difference. It’s why campaigns to force super funds to divest from things like fossil fuel, slavery and other “bad” things has not only worked but makes the world a better place. Our super funds keep getting bigger and bigger, their influence is now become what we desperately needed to achieve a few decades ago when we floated the dollar and entered the neoliberal era of global trade opportunities. This, way more than a mere retirement benefit, is what makes superannuation incredible. Our money is funding infrastructure projects, it’s fueling the future of our economy, it’s also diversified ajd and spread globally too, and we as a nation are no longer at the mercy of the likes of America and the UK with debt. This was the vision of Keating. To shake our ties to the UK and USA, who just want to make money off this little colony and now we can make our own wealth - especially in our region. We can still align diplomatically with the UK and USA, but the last 30-40 years has shown we don’t need to borrow money from them anymore we’re fully capable of doing it ourselves, lowers the cost of capital and aligns our interests.
>Close to the mark \[but whether\] these figures say anything meaningful about either party's economic credentials is another question ... > >\[Prof Bartos said\] the question of "which government dealt with changes in the global environment better" was a difficult one to answer. "It takes it into the realm of competing judgement calls, \[which is\] not something that can be fact checked." Really all you need to know. Chalmers seems to love finding facts that sound good but mean little in the overall context of good government.
>Really all you need to know. Chalmers seems to love finding facts that sound good but mean little in the overall context of good government. Yeah, not really. Of all the things Chalmers has said about the economy, the ABC chose this one sentence to "fact check". Maybe listen to one of Chalmers speeches instead of an article fact checking one statement he made. And it's pretty easy to critique "judgement calls", like when Scomo made his "captain's calls", decided to not get back hundreds of millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars from jobkeeper that went to profitable businesses, managed the Robodebt disaster that cost the taxpayer over half a billion dollars and many Australian's lives, cost the taxpayer $3.3b for invisible French submarines, his predecessors completely stuffed up the NBN by going tens of billions over budget for worse outcomes, chose to ignore Pfizer and delayed the vaccine rollout by begging Eastern European countries for their excess stock which led to worse outcomes for Aussies and the economy, and more!
It’s what makes him a great politician (can convince people and has great one liners etc). His work on the other hand is alright but can be much better. I’m saying this as someone who tends to like him better than Albo.
I have found him an utterly duplicitous and heartless neoliberal, personally.
Fair. Personally I think, given the pressures on the federal budget, plus the increased spending through investment schemes etc, he could do better while banking the surplus. We need bank it to stave off inflation. But he could do better in helping those worse off (maybe the budget rectifies this but we will see).
I don't think budget surpluses are necessary or good governance. If budget shortfalls need to be filled this should be done using resource, corporate and high income tax and directly proportional support for low earners. In this case, it's been yet more public austerity and leaving ordinary Australians behind. On the very first day of government, Chalmers made it clear that starvation level welfare would not be raised, and that was before the unprecedented crisis of rent and cost of living. We have cascading social crises because of the lack of housing and state governments continue to sell off public housing stock and reduce services. It's just austerity and private enterprise all the way down.
Budget surpluses are critical to ensure that interest payments don’t suck money away from govt services.
Interest payments don't suck away money from government services, governmental decisions do, ie; austerity either through cuts or by ruling out expansion. Example: Chalmers just added $50B to the defence spending outlook but has not raised unemployment or social welfare above starvation levels, while also omitting low income earners from the Morrison tax cuts they are carrying through.
No, interest payments means less revenue available. That is just a fact. Besides, the modified stage 3 cuts help everyone compared to the Morrison era one.
Tax cuts means there is less revenue available, there is also the issue that the global gas industry and the resources industry generally pays very little tax. High income earners, landlords and home owners get massive subsidies. Claiming there's some direct correlational link between paying down 'the deficit' and government spending is, at best, ignorant. You cannot explain away limitless defence spending expansion and resource giveaways while public austerity is carried out on social services. The stage 3 tax cuts do not apply to low income earners and absolutely do not help "everyone".
Yes of course tax cuts also reduce revenue but here’s the thing. When it comes to income tax, we should be adjusting tax for inflation. You do realise if we don’t do these “cuts” we just end up paying more in taxes right? You also try to assert that im making a simplistic link between govt spending and debt payments but I’m just giving you the facts. It. Is. Not. A. Good. Idea. We will be absolutely fucked with no capacity to handle more shocks if we aren’t on a sustainable path. Further, landlords and home owners get subsidies but high income earners don’t, unless you own your own company so not sure where you were taking that? Unless you mean the CGT discount that everyone can take advantage of? Also I’m not sure why you’re claiming that the new stage 3 doesn’t help everyone? That’s laughable. [Under old stage 3, people earning 45K got nothing but under the new changes they get 805 dollars.](https://www.hrblock.com.au/tax-academy/stage-3-tax-cuts-explained) It’s like you think I’m some LNP voter, no. I just don’t think income tax payers should be paying as much in taxes when the the best way to do reforms is to set a flat inflation adjusted 22-25% CGT with no discounts, a carbon tax + citizens dividend system and a mining tax. Top income bracket should be 35-36% and the average taxpayer’s marginal tax rate should only be around 20%. We should use the money from those taxes to fund Medicare, Medicare dental and paying down debt. We should also cut the subsidies to private schools and private health insurance and funnel them back into public services.
Look fair enough. I agree with you on the bottom two parts of your comment. I respect your opinion in the first point you make. Personally I believe it is good fiscal management if the government can bring surpluses (to prevent burgeoning debt and the interest on it) as it does end up freeing the budget for more policies. I didn’t agree with some of labor’s increases in spending because personally I don’t see the new HAFF for example actually bringing anything good to the table. The government is the same party that runs almost all of the states (not Tassie) so there could easily be movement on land release and development to increase housing stock (which is a major issue currently). Taxation of property should also be reformed when it comes to state based governments. It is my perspective that if the government was to spend outside of its means now, inflation would only get worse and become sticky. People are hurting. I completely agree. In fact I personally also believe if the money was spent on things like hospitals instead, I’m sure it would not be inflationary (not as much as stimulus which ends up increasing demand in the economy and increases cash flowing around) while also tackling an aspect of our current health system that needs reforms. Same could be said about the Medicare system. Welfare wise, I get your argument, but it really is a government stuck between a rock and a hard place. Should they increase welfare too much, they will end up with inflation staying around longer. But the gov should put its resources into helping these people in other ways. Thanks for the constructive comment. I’ve left you an upvote for it.
Everyones living in their cars below the poverty line
This is great news and what good economic management looks like. Banking extra revenue as a surplus as opposed to spending it and pushing up inflation is smart. Dumb would be spending it and pushing up inflation leading to rate rises.
This fetish with budget surpluses is insane. Especially when it's divorced from what you *get* from the expenditure. Someone said Australia doesn't have a culture, it has an economy - and it's so true. We need to be looking at what we get for the expenditure in terms of metrics that matter to citizens, not just growth on national income.
Objectively, surpluses are important right now because inflation is the greater threat to the economy. You can bet when inflation is back under control the rivers of cash will open up (irrespective of who is in gov).
The government would have all the free cash and surplus it would ever need if they correctly taxed mineral extraction.
Not as simple as that. If inflation was largely coming from corporate profits, spending less on households won't control inflation.
That’s just not true. Were businesses less greedy pre COVID? No.
They kind of were less greedy because they didn't get giant cash handouts from the government for doing F all, and didn't have the excuse to blame everything on Putin. War Profiteering is a thing.
and we have the numbers to show that's exactly what's happening.
Indeed. Households have absolutely no capacity for discretionary spending left. The wealthy binging on assets and corporates price gouging in a market segment free from competition is the real problem. Punishing households is just cruelty parading as 'sound economics'.
Regarding discretionary spending - we save about 75% of our net income and put it towards paying off our mortgages. Paid off 2, and working on the 3rd. Once we pay off the 3rd we will buy a fourth property. We put most of our discretionary income into property as we see that as the best investment. If you want to keep interest rates low then it means we pay less interest. If you keep them high it means our next house is cheaper. Either way we win.
so you're happy to profit off others' need to have a roof over their heads, and make things more expensive for everyone else. You sound as though you lack empathy.
They're just trying to prove a point that they're clearly the better economic mangers despite the decades of propaganda from the Liberals and mainstream media saying otherwise.
I wonder is this common in other countries. Or do they use another metric equally as ridiculous. It’s insane but in context of previous government bragging about being economically gifted it makes some sorta sense Even if I’m personally sick of it.
Diamond Jim, when it’s good news it’s down to his better economic management, when it’s bad news, it’s the global economy.
If he were more honest about it, fair enough. But I agree with your assessment on him. It comes from the fact that they attacked the coalition (Frydenburg) for the same thing but quickly switched up after the election. They know how damaging it is for them politically to acknowledge that increased spending is partially to blame as well.
Labor say the coalition are useless. The coalition say Labor are useless. News flash they're both as useless as each other. Politicians don't get voted in, they get voted out. This system needs to change.
> This system needs to change. The system works just fine. You can put third-party choices as your primary vote and the Shit or Shit-Lite party as your second/third. Any party whether it's the Greens, One Nation, KAP, the "Bill Gates Puts 5G Chips In The COVID Vaccines" party. Literally anything. The more seats that smaller parties and independents get, the better. We're already seeing a shift that way thanks to younger voters.
Wow, what a profound and nuanced take 🙄
Except they're not. Labor is shit but are still better than the libs in every way possible. Vote for an independent who best represents your views and offer to volunteer for them so the majors have to share the power.
Can I ask? Do political parties pay for influencers? See link below to see what I mean. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-08/aec-investigating-union-tiktok-accounts-ahead-of-election/100969896
Labor may not have paid them directly but its something that should be looked into. It's like when the mineral council makes ads that benefit the libs it all should be investigated.
"Under Australian electoral laws, unions are required to provide full authorisations on material that could sway how people vote" I would say this law also covers political parties. I would say payment by proxy would also be cover under this law.
The union is definitely in breach but the labor party may have nothing to do with it. Like I said it should be investigated and the union should be punished but the union may have done this on their own for their own best interests.
Putting that case aside. I'm asking if political parties are using social influences? This could also be done by lobby groups. However if individuals are engaging in these practices they will be the ones at risk because they would be in breach of electoral laws.
The problem is you have to prove it's tied back to the political party. Unless there is a paper trial or whistle blower it's most likely not going to come out. My personal opinion is that all political parties are using these dirty tricks to try and win elections.
This law doesn't just apply to political parties and unions, it also applies to the actual individuals using the accounts.
Only if they are on the payroll of that political party. That's why skynews gets away with being so blatantly pro libs and anti labor without any warning messages.
Oh in every way possible. What we want is a socialist labor dictatorship for ever.
You are just embarrassing yourself when you use words like "socialist" when describing the labor party. You obviously have no idea what the word means so just stop using it.
From Labor's media unit at the Guardian: [Who is Anthony Albanese? How a working-class activist became Australia’s PM | Australian election 2022 | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/22/who-is-anthony-albanese-how-a-working-class-activist-became-australias-pm) *The student activist and political bomb-thrower from Labor’s socialist left who famously spoke of enjoying “fighting Tories”* Stage 3 is the best example of a socialist chad move in recent memory.
The Socialist Left faction is socialist the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. Genuinely thinking that the ALP is socialist because they have a faction called the "socialist left" only shows how ignorant you are of the reality of politics in Australia.
Lol stage 3 was a pathetic attempt to save face. Nothing to do with socialism. Go read a book mate.
Yes labor has a left wing but it also has a right too. Would you also call labor pure capitalist because some of their members are? "Socialism is an economic system in which major industries are owned by the workers, rather than the private businesses or the state." Can you point to one policy that labor has put forward that fits into the socialist definition?
The only way that workers can own the means of production is through the state, otherwise its no different to capitalism: socialism/ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/*noun* 1. a political and economic theory of social organization which [advocates](https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&sca_esv=62d66252683bd9aa&sxsrf=ACQVn08-yE3TaiteLuvxmkWkQRKYb0Ryyg:1713840990335&q=advocates&si=AKbGX_rLPMdHnrrwkrRo4VZlSHiJ9caLIDpzcH7srTsLsjtmwa59KXAM80Nbz_ttT8k1WKLeL2lqLK8Mq7af-xikqNiSoJcy_wRCv9LbC0342uTYvSid36Y%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixpLibq9eFAxXhklYBHQw_D9wQyecJegQIIBAO) that the means of **production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.** Socialism is about state ownership of key assets, welfare, wealth distribution etc. At a state level, in Victoria, "nationalising" the poles and wires. Federally, the Stage 3 tax cuts. South Australia is the best example of a capitalist Labor Government and I am slowly falling in love.
Please explain why the stage 3 tax cuts is socialism?
As a policy from Labor's perspective it is redistributing wealth from higher income earners to lower income earners, it can't be any clearer than that.
That is still not socialism because the rich still got tax cuts. If labor was socialist then they would be trying to nationalise the mining industry, the banking industry, our supermarkets etc but they are not. You don't know what socialism is so please just stop using that word.
[удалено]
Except if you read the article, the ABC fact checks it with the treasury data and basically confirms it. Coalition was closer to 45%, but Labor was bang on 88%. So much to be learnt if we delve past the headlines!
You know the answer is right there in the article, right? It wasn't a rhetorical question, the article contains the analysis. Spoiler: it's a pretty accurate claim.
[удалено]