|
|
Post by Flash on May 13, 2008 0:30:40 GMT -5
Budget 2008
TREASURER Wayne Swan will have to perform a fantastic high-wire act to give the Rudd Labor Government’s first Budget some credibility when he brings it down in a fortnight’s time.
The signs are he is still coming to grips with the reality that Australia does not exist in exquisite isolation from the rest of the global economy and that even within our island continent there are major regional and financial variations which affect the politically sensitive hip-pocket nerve.
With the Reserve Bank’s interest rate now set at 7.25 per cent, higher than it has been since 1994 when the former governor Bernie Fraser jacked up interest rates 2.75 per cent in the five months between August and December, many Australians are proclaiming their pain.
Not the pain that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he could feel when he was on the campaign trail last year, but a far greater pain.
According to Westpac chief economist Bill Evans, the consumer confidence index has plunged 21.2 per cent over the past three months, the biggest such fall since the survey commenced in 1975, and the fall occurred under Labor, which promised it would do better than the Howard government.
Around Budget time last year, Labor ran a series of campaign advertisements in which Rudd proclaimed he was, and always had been, a fiscal conservative.
Three months ago, on January 21, he repeated the mantra and brought it up to date, saying: “Prior to the election we ran as fiscal conservatives. With the election behind us, we now intend to govern as fiscal conservatives.”
Rudd, and his predecessor as Opposition leader, Kim Beazley, did their best to talk down the Australian economy despite the reality that unemployment was at historical lows, inflation was within the bounds of the 2-3 per cent target enshrined in the Reserve Bank charter and interest rates were relatively low.
They were successful. Sufficient voters believed them to tip the Howard government out after a period of extraordinary economic prosperity and social stability.
By and large, ordinary working families benefited from the Howard government’s tax cuts and full employment and were better off than they had been for decades.
That situation has now shifted and Swan must show he has mastered the Treasury brief and can perform with the same aplomb former treasurer Peter Costello displayed when he annually distributed the nation’s largesse.
Several problems are looming for the Government however.
It has become apparent Swan is happy to let Reserve Bank boss Glenn Stevens sublet the job of keeping inflation in check to private sector banks, which after years of following the RBA, now feel sufficiently emboldened by the fiscal conservatism of the Rudd Government to lead the RBA in jacking up the rates.
Stevens, in turn, is pleased the independent increases imposed by the private banks are “exerting a significant restraining influence on both households and businesses”.
The private banks’ tighter credit standards for riskier borrowers have also worked “to foster the moderation in demand growth that was needed to ease the pressure on inflation”, the minutes of the April 1 board meeting note.
Swan did criticise National Australia Bank for lifting its variable mortgage interest rate rise by 10 basis points, independent of any move by the RBA, but his criticism was based on its timing - Anzac Day - otherwise it was only doing what banks do under Labor.
On Budget night, Swan and Rudd will have to convince Australians that they, not Stevens, are actually in control.
They will have to balance the extra revenues flowing into the economy from the new coal and iron ore prices and their promised $31 billion in tax cuts.
They will also have to justify the new taxes they will impose on alcohol and tobacco (get those old “Beer, Smokes Up” headlines ready), as well as explain what has happened to their election promise to immediately come to grips with horrors that they promoted such as housing affordability, dental health, fuel and grocery prices and the cost of childcare.
Further, they will have to explain to all those hurting Australians how they plan to defy all serious predictions from economists, business organisations and regulators such as the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which have argued that Labor’s changes to the industrial relations laws will stoke greater inflationary pressure on the economy.
Having spent the past five months warning that the inflation genie was out of the bottle, they will have to justify every increase in inflationary pressure they introduce.
Labor apologists may well claim the Howard government left Rudd and Swan with no option but to follow the former government’s proposed tax cuts, they may also argue that the RBA is independent, but they will not be able to avoid taking responsibility for the May 13 Budget.
The blame game will be well and truly over.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardigan on May 13, 2008 1:07:08 GMT -5
Budget 2008 TREASURER Wayne Swan will have to perform a fantastic high-wire act to give the Rudd Labor Government’s first Budget some credibility when he brings it down in a fortnight’s time. The signs are he is still coming to grips with the reality that Australia does not exist in exquisite isolation from the rest of the global economy and that even within our island continent there are major regional and financial variations which affect the politically sensitive hip-pocket nerve. With the Reserve Bank’s interest rate now set at 7.25 per cent, higher than it has been since 1994 when the former governor Bernie Fraser jacked up interest rates 2.75 per cent in the five months between August and December, many Australians are proclaiming their pain. Not the pain that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he could feel when he was on the campaign trail last year, but a far greater pain. According to Westpac chief economist Bill Evans, the consumer confidence index has plunged 21.2 per cent over the past three months, the biggest such fall since the survey commenced in 1975, and the fall occurred under Labor, which promised it would do better than the Howard government. Around Budget time last year, Labor ran a series of campaign advertisements in which Rudd proclaimed he was, and always had been, a fiscal conservative. Three months ago, on January 21, he repeated the mantra and brought it up to date, saying: “Prior to the election we ran as fiscal conservatives. With the election behind us, we now intend to govern as fiscal conservatives.” Rudd, and his predecessor as Opposition leader, Kim Beazley, did their best to talk down the Australian economy despite the reality that unemployment was at historical lows, inflation was within the bounds of the 2-3 per cent target enshrined in the Reserve Bank charter and interest rates were relatively low. They were successful. Sufficient voters believed them to tip the Howard government out after a period of extraordinary economic prosperity and social stability. By and large, ordinary working families benefited from the Howard government’s tax cuts and full employment and were better off than they had been for decades. That situation has now shifted and Swan must show he has mastered the Treasury brief and can perform with the same aplomb former treasurer Peter Costello displayed when he annually distributed the nation’s largesse. Several problems are looming for the Government however. It has become apparent Swan is happy to let Reserve Bank boss Glenn Stevens sublet the job of keeping inflation in check to private sector banks, which after years of following the RBA, now feel sufficiently emboldened by the fiscal conservatism of the Rudd Government to lead the RBA in jacking up the rates. Stevens, in turn, is pleased the independent increases imposed by the private banks are “exerting a significant restraining influence on both households and businesses”. The private banks’ tighter credit standards for riskier borrowers have also worked “to foster the moderation in demand growth that was needed to ease the pressure on inflation”, the minutes of the April 1 board meeting note. Swan did criticise National Australia Bank for lifting its variable mortgage interest rate rise by 10 basis points, independent of any move by the RBA, but his criticism was based on its timing - Anzac Day - otherwise it was only doing what banks do under Labor. On Budget night, Swan and Rudd will have to convince Australians that they, not Stevens, are actually in control. They will have to balance the extra revenues flowing into the economy from the new coal and iron ore prices and their promised $31 billion in tax cuts. They will also have to justify the new taxes they will impose on alcohol and tobacco (get those old “Beer, Smokes Up” headlines ready), as well as explain what has happened to their election promise to immediately come to grips with horrors that they promoted such as housing affordability, dental health, fuel and grocery prices and the cost of childcare. Further, they will have to explain to all those hurting Australians how they plan to defy all serious predictions from economists, business organisations and regulators such as the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which have argued that Labor’s changes to the industrial relations laws will stoke greater inflationary pressure on the economy. Having spent the past five months warning that the inflation genie was out of the bottle, they will have to justify every increase in inflationary pressure they introduce. Labor apologists may well claim the Howard government left Rudd and Swan with no option but to follow the former government’s proposed tax cuts, they may also argue that the RBA is independent, but they will not be able to avoid taking responsibility for the May 13 Budget. The blame game will be well and truly over. Just remember all the rhetoric from Labor's Past. All the nonsense being spoken about the economy is just "putting the toe in the water" to soften the blow for the imminent cutting of social services...... oh yes, EDITOR please note that your spell check doesn't work either |
|
|
|
Post by keith on May 15, 2008 12:08:58 GMT -5
Budget 2008 TREASURER Wayne Swan will have to perform a fantastic high-wire act to give the Rudd Labor Government’s first Budget some credibility when he brings it down in a fortnight’s time. The signs are he is still coming to grips with the reality that Australia does not exist in exquisite isolation from the rest of the global economy and that even within our island continent there are major regional and financial variations which affect the politically sensitive hip-pocket nerve. With the Reserve Bank’s interest rate now set at 7.25 per cent, higher than it has been since 1994 when the former governor Bernie Fraser jacked up interest rates 2.75 per cent in the five months between August and December, many Australians are proclaiming their pain. Not the pain that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he could feel when he was on the campaign trail last year, but a far greater pain. According to Westpac chief economist Bill Evans, the consumer confidence index has plunged 21.2 per cent over the past three months, the biggest such fall since the survey commenced in 1975, and the fall occurred under Labor, which promised it would do better than the Howard government. Around Budget time last year, Labor ran a series of campaign advertisements in which Rudd proclaimed he was, and always had been, a fiscal conservative. Three months ago, on January 21, he repeated the mantra and brought it up to date, saying: “Prior to the election we ran as fiscal conservatives. With the election behind us, we now intend to govern as fiscal conservatives.” Rudd, and his predecessor as Opposition leader, Kim Beazley, did their best to talk down the Australian economy despite the reality that unemployment was at historical lows, inflation was within the bounds of the 2-3 per cent target enshrined in the Reserve Bank charter and interest rates were relatively low. They were successful. Sufficient voters believed them to tip the Howard government out after a period of extraordinary economic prosperity and social stability. By and large, ordinary working families benefited from the Howard government’s tax cuts and full employment and were better off than they had been for decades. That situation has now shifted and Swan must show he has mastered the Treasury brief and can perform with the same aplomb former treasurer Peter Costello displayed when he annually distributed the nation’s largesse. Several problems are looming for the Government however. It has become apparent Swan is happy to let Reserve Bank boss Glenn Stevens sublet the job of keeping inflation in check to private sector banks, which after years of following the RBA, now feel sufficiently emboldened by the fiscal conservatism of the Rudd Government to lead the RBA in jacking up the rates. Stevens, in turn, is pleased the independent increases imposed by the private banks are “exerting a significant restraining influence on both households and businesses”. The private banks’ tighter credit standards for riskier borrowers have also worked “to foster the moderation in demand growth that was needed to ease the pressure on inflation”, the minutes of the April 1 board meeting note. Swan did criticise National Australia Bank for lifting its variable mortgage interest rate rise by 10 basis points, independent of any move by the RBA, but his criticism was based on its timing - Anzac Day - otherwise it was only doing what banks do under Labor. On Budget night, Swan and Rudd will have to convince Australians that they, not Stevens, are actually in control. They will have to balance the extra revenues flowing into the economy from the new coal and iron ore prices and their promised $31 billion in tax cuts. They will also have to justify the new taxes they will impose on alcohol and tobacco (get those old “Beer, Smokes Up” headlines ready), as well as explain what has happened to their election promise to immediately come to grips with horrors that they promoted such as housing affordability, dental health, fuel and grocery prices and the cost of childcare. Further, they will have to explain to all those hurting Australians how they plan to defy all serious predictions from economists, business organisations and regulators such as the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which have argued that Labor’s changes to the industrial relations laws will stoke greater inflationary pressure on the economy. Having spent the past five months warning that the inflation genie was out of the bottle, they will have to justify every increase in inflationary pressure they introduce. Labor apologists may well claim the Howard government left Rudd and Swan with no option but to follow the former government’s proposed tax cuts, they may also argue that the RBA is independent, but they will not be able to avoid taking responsibility for the May 13 Budget. The blame game will be well and truly over. Just remember all the rhetoric from Labor's Past. All the nonsense being spoken about the economy is just "putting the toe in the water" to soften the blow for the imminent cutting of social services...... oh yes, EDITOR please note that your spell check doesn't work either Rudd thinks election still under way Kevin Rudd seems to think the election campaign is still under way. He seems to have trouble realising that the campaign is over. He is now supposed to be governing. Tonight's budget set out to please many and to upset few. The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, talks tough. He trumpets it as a budget to "fight inflation first," yet it is a budget that actually squibs the fight. How? It will tip over $15 billion into taxpayers' incomes in 2008-09. Plus, this budget will increase overall Federal spending, after adjusting for inflation, by 1.1 per cent. These are both measures that will stimulate demand and add to inflation. Swan declared yesterday that the budget delivered a "mild tightening." But, in truth, the budget is stimulatory. It will add to inflation, not fight it. That leaves the Reserve Bank to do the tightening instead. And, despite the Robin Hood rhetoric of taking from the rich to give to Rudd's "working families," in truth, the rich emerge from this budget unscathed and, on some measures, better off. The budget does give generously to the "working families" previously known as Howard's battlers. The "typical working family" illustrated in Government budget pamphlets has a primary breadwinner - Patrick - earning $60,000 and Susie - earning $27,000 and their two young kids will receive total new benefits worth $4,160. This comprises tax cuts worth $1,050, an education tax refund of $375, plus an increase in the child care rebate worth $1,255, and benefits through the first home saver account of $1,480. Altogether, that's an increase in Patrick and Susie's disposable income of 4.8 per cent a year. Although much Rudd Government rhetoric gives the impression that it is taking a stern approach to upper-income earners, it is not imposing any real penalty. The budget does indeed impose a means test on the baby bonus and family tax benefit part B, denying these benefits to anyone earning over $150,000. A household with an income of $200,000 a year, one stay-at-home spouse and two young kids will lose a tax benefit worth $118 a week under this measure. This, Swan said yesterday, was the toughest decision of the entire budget. But offsetting this is the fact that that same family will receive a tax cut worth $50. So the net loss from the budget will be $68 a week. That's a loss of 1.7 per cent. It's real, but it's very modest. Few families in this income bracket will cancel the family holiday as a result. But look two years ahead. The gathering value of the tax cuts will give an annual benefit of $6,050 a year to this family on $200,000, completely cancelling out the loss of the family tax benefit part B. Not so tough after all. In its first budget, a new government should be ambitious. Rudd seems to be concentrating on popularity rather than ambition in the national interest. |
|
|
|
Post by keith on May 15, 2008 12:34:26 GMT -5
THE extremely large increase in the threshold of the Medicare levy, benefiting uninsured high income earners, shows starkly the Labor Party’s doctrinaire socialist roots are well and truly alive.
It is the height of hypocrisy to implement such a policy.
The highly stressed public hospital system, with ever increasing patient loads, has needed a high proportion of privately insured patients to help stay afloat.
The loss of income and the resultant growth in patient numbers will obviously increase the pressure on the public health system, meaning a further lessening of service for all.
Moreover, it is taking from people who can comfortably afford the levy, while putting extreme pressure on large numbers of pensioners, self-funded retirees and one-income families, who seek the reassurance of private health insurance — now they will have to pay considerably more for the same cover.
Surely the disarray of the chronically underfunded socialised National Health Scheme in Britain should be a salient lesson.
When the next Liberal governments go to an election they won’t need “me too policies”; just get elected and if at all possible change everything back.
|
|
|
|
Post by keith on May 15, 2008 13:31:02 GMT -5
Scumbag Rudd ! It's bad enough that working families will be worse off under the Rudd Government's Claytons tax cuts, but for Kevin Rudd to turn his back on the pensioners and the disabled is absolutely scandalous. According to my calculations, this group, many of whom are way below the poverty line, are at least $60 a week worse off since the show pony and his vaudeville troupe took over the Treasury. Thank God for Brendan and the Libs. At a time when the Government is swimming in money, rather than squirrel away $21.7 billion for the 2010 election, anyone with a degree of compassion would see now is the time to give a little bit back to the people who contributed to the living standard which most Australians enjoy today. The Labor Party has always accused the Howard government of being mean-spirited. Mr Howard and Mr Nelson has more compassion in one fingernail than this multi-millionaire Prime Minister has in his whole selfish body. With this budget, Mr Rudd has set out to do just one thing to prove he is a fiscal conservative, and to hell with the real battlers. No. YOU can Piss off Rudd. We were better off and more secure under Howard Tom Griffin, Pambula, NSW THE extremely large increase in the threshold of the Medicare levy, benefiting uninsured high income earners, shows starkly the Labor Party’s doctrinaire socialist roots are well and truly alive. It is the height of hypocrisy to implement such a policy. The highly stressed public hospital system, with ever increasing patient loads, has needed a high proportion of privately insured patients to help stay afloat. The loss of income and the resultant growth in patient numbers will obviously increase the pressure on the public health system, meaning a further lessening of service for all. Moreover, it is taking from people who can comfortably afford the levy, while putting extreme pressure on large numbers of pensioners, self-funded retirees and one-income families, who seek the reassurance of private health insurance — now they will have to pay considerably more for the same cover. Surely the disarray of the chronically underfunded socialised National Health Scheme in Britain should be a salient lesson. When the next Liberal governments go to an election they won’t need “me too policies”; just get elected and if at all possible change everything back. |
|
|
|
Post by keith on May 15, 2008 14:27:44 GMT -5
They built this country up and now you're letting them down
*
Australians now know what the Rudd Government means when its ministers rabbit on about working families. When Australians reach pension age they are no longer working, no longer part of a working family, and are only reluctantly and inadequately supported. Like old machinery, they are on the national scrapheap.
The generations aged 65 to their 80s and 90s experienced the Depression years and World War II. They and earlier generations built the country, fought for it and were the engineers of the postwar nation-building boom. They paid for the war with their service, their labour and their taxes.
They built the public infrastructure - roads, railways, water storage and irrigation systems, an electricity grid, universities, the public education and health systems - and administered it prudently so that they built up reserves for its maintenance and development. Opportunities for personal saving were not very great, but by the mid-20th century, Australians had built a nation, prosperous, generous and caring.
From the late 1960s, when the postwar generations of governments and administrators came into power, they stripped the public infrastructures of their reserves. Then they demanded and took dividends from the electricity authorities, the water supply systems and the rail systems. They spent the public savings of past generations on current expenditure.
The consequences are that our public infrastructure is rundown; the ability of the bodies that run it to repair and reform is nil and their staff are demoralised. Governments, federal and state, refused to levy the taxes sufficient to fund current expenditure or renew infrastructure. Thus the call to privatise.
The free market (more like a lottery) rules in the name of spurious efficiency and spurious freedom. Hence the Treasurer's "nation building" budget. He should have called it nation rebuilding.
Yet those who built the nation are dishonoured in their old age with inadequate financial support and public indifference, while "working families" earning up to $150,000 a year are still the recipients of middle-class welfare, and self-funded retirees like myself remain the beneficiaries of extraordinary superannuation largesse and other concessions.
The Government admits there has been inflation in the costs of rents, food and petrol. Yet pensioners and those on disability allowances received no consideration in the budget. They are expected to survive on about $13,000 a year and a few concessions.
Joan Bielski Wollstonecraft
|
|
|
|
Post by Flash on May 17, 2008 1:51:31 GMT -5
Margaret Cook Age
May 17, 2008
IT BEGAN last week when Shirley Grant, 72, telephoned radio host Neil Mitchell about the daily battle pensioners face to make ends meet.
Yesterday, it escalated into a city protest by hundreds of angry pensioners — some shirtless — calling for the Federal Government to increase the pension by $100 a week.
They held banners saying, "A fair go for pensioners" and "It doesn't pay to grow old".
Others called out: "This is the lucky country — but only for rich people," "We served this nation" and "Shirley, Shirley, Shirley".
An overwhelmed Mrs Grant, who was inspired by the recent shirtless protest by Melbourne taxi drivers, said the pensioners' anger and frustration was reflected across the country.
"We just want a fair go, enough money to live on," she said. "We were forgotten in the budget and we haven't had a substantial increase in years."
The protest blocked the Flinders-Swanston streets intersection for up to an hour. About six pensioners took their tops off, including John, 69, of Bayswater North, who said his wife wouldn't be happy.
"But it's about standing up for your rights," he stressed. "Who can survive on $270 a week?"
Council on the Ageing executive director Sue Hendy said many pensioners "don't eat properly, struggle to pay bills and can't afford to do things with their grandchildren".
The maximum pension for single people is $546.80 a fortnight and $456.80 each a fortnight for couples.
Family First senator Steve Fielding, who organised the rally with Mrs Grant, admitted that taking off his shirt went against his conservative image. But he said pensioners such as his parents and sister, who has an intellectual disability, were "doing it tough". He called for all pensions to be increased by at least $70 a fortnight.
"The budget gave some one-off benefits but there were no forecasts (for increases) in future budgets," Senator Fielding said.
"There's a $2 billion surplus, why not spend some of it?"
Pensioners, some tearful, were anxious to tell their stories.
"I need my car to get to hospital for cancer treatment," said Catherine, 69. "But I can't afford heating, so I put on thick clothes and go to bed."
Beverley Alben said she owned her own home but that "rates, insurance, everything is going up".
Treasurer Wayne Swan said this week that the Government had kept faith with pensioners in the federal budget and would deliver more in budgets to come.
|
|
