How refreshing! Someone who actually knows what they are posting about. Politician does not equal diplomat, they are very different things.

I wouldn't go that far. I just did a little bit of research.

The elephant in the room is falling revenue.

The tax cuts during the Halcion days leading up to the GFC are an ongoing drag. Anyone who had an extended pay freeze or cut knows that you don't get back to where you otherwise would have been.

What's bad for many and doesn't bother others is it's a regressive tax. And the black economy is alive and well. And that's why it probably will be increased

What falling revenue is that?

The only fall in revenue was the Treasury's guesstamate of the revenue.   In fact, revenue went up, the problem was the spending went up even more.

By the way, the Treasury uses the same computer modelling as Tim Flannery.   Enter a series of data and just before the submit button there is one more section - 'Enter the result that you want this modelling to show ...'

The only fall in revenue was the Treasury's guesstamate of the revenue.   In fact, revenue went up, the problem was the spending went up even more.

By the way, the Treasury uses the same computer modelling as Tim Flannery.   Enter a series of data and just before the submit button there is one more section - 'Enter the result that you want this modelling to show ...'

And guess who will be using the same Treasury and computer in a few weeks time.

Certainly prime minister...

The elephant in the room is falling revenue.

.......

Yeah I'm not confident of either party actually acknowledging that situation properly but I feel that with the end of the mining boom there's all sorts of ramifications with less money in the economy and less revenue coming in to fill the Commonwealth coffers.  I'm also still unhappy with the answers that Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have been giving in response to 'what will be cut'... they are very evasive.  It's like they are trying to coast in with a 'small target' policy like Johnny Howard in 1996 - I think we have a right to know what they will do.

... I think we have a right to know what they will do.

I don't know what they are afraid of.   Everyone knows that projects will have to be cut (better yet the entire Global Warming Dept.  That will save several $Billion.)   The current spend spend spend policy has to stop.

I don't know what they are afraid of.   Everyone knows that projects will have to be cut (better yet the entire Global Warming Dept.  That will save several $Billion.)   The current spend spend spend policy has to stop.

Peter Costello was very 'anti' John Maynard Keynes but essentially Keynes was right about many things.  In essence he believe that the government had to borrow to support the economy through hard times and then pay the debt off again when the sun is shining.

Whether or not Rudd's big spending in 2008 actually saved us from the GFC is a point for ongoing discussion but the fact is when the government withdraws money from the economy it shrinks, everyone understands that dilemma, which is why they are so reluctant to spell out what they will do.

If you listen to Hockey over the last few weeks he's very confused - he genuinely doesn't seem to know what they are doing.  Because they probably realise that instantaneous cutting will cause problems straight away.  So what will they do?  My feeling is that some of his new programs like the stupidly generous paid maternity leave scheme will not be implemented and we'll also see some of the environmental things go as you said.  I also think there's a strong likelyhood that some of the Medicare programs will get chopped because they affect people who probably wouldn't have voted Liberal anyway.

...The current spend spend spend policy has to stop.

Don't expect it to go into nation building infrastructure!

Only today the Liberal's confirmed they will continue their perverted brand of socialism where government assistance is directly proportional to income. Sure by its standards anyone earning twice the average wage is disadvantaged and needs more government money than those earning less.

All babies will be born equal but the minority's are more equal than the majority's. Smacks of social engineering.

.......
All babies will be born equal but the minority's are more equal than the majority's. Smacks of social engineering.

No, they're rewarding their core constituents, that's all.

Johnny Howard set the trend with heavy subsidies to private health insurance and the middle class welfare train has been running express ever since then.

Yeah I'm not confident of either party actually acknowledging that situation properly but I feel that with the end of the mining boom there's all sorts of ramifications with less money in the economy and less revenue coming in to fill the Commonwealth coffers.  I'm also still unhappy with the answers that Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have been giving in response to 'what will be cut'... they are very evasive.  It's like they are trying to coast in with a 'small target' policy like Johnny Howard in 1996 - I think we have a right to know what they will do.

There is not 'less money in the economy'. After a slight fall in revenue in 08/09 on account of global conditions, revenue has risen and is estimated and projected to continue. The only 'fall in revenue' is against Treasury's preposterous 'forecasts' (which included the blundered mining and carbon tax revenue that never eventuated). Revenue is far greater now than it was 5 years ago (over $70 billion more).

Okay, well say that the current budgetary deficit is $20 billion (for example), if the government chops $20 billion from expenditure (as Abbott is supposedly going to do) then doesn't that mean $20 billion less in the economy?  Also, if the Current Account Deficit (CAD) expands by a great amount (which its predicted to), doesn't that also mean more money going off-shore than coming in?  And if taxation receipts are so much more than five years ago then why was I reading recently that national GST revenues have crashed?  Is there some other source of revenue that's taken its place?

Okay, well say that the current budgetary deficit is $20 billion (for example), if the government chops $20 billion from expenditure (as Abbott is supposedly going to do) then doesn't that mean $20 billion less in the economy?  Also, if the Current Account Deficit (CAD) expands by a great amount (which its predicted to), doesn't that also mean more money going off-shore than coming in?  And if taxation receipts are so much more than five years ago then why was I reading recently that national GST revenues have crashed?  Is there some other source of revenue that's taken its place?

We can tell you're on the government's side... The current budget deficit, no need for examples, just use real figures, they're real easy to find is $30.1 billion. That is the figure quoted in the 2013 PEFO documentation.

It is possible to reduce expenditure without removing too much from the overall economy. For example if you're careful in cutting company taxes and employment goes up you can generate an overall gain in income from income tax. An incoming government could spend less by demolishing the clean energy finance corporation, and other non essential service areas.

And, please, please, please try and understand what the GST is, we know that all Labor (and Green) stooges have a problem with this. The GST is a STATE (that is STATE) tax. Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan, Penny Wong, Kevin Rudd and Chis Bowen all sit in Federal Parliament, they are the ones always complaining about receipts being down, when indeed they are up. What the GST does or does not do is irrelevant to them (and this thread) because it's whole income goes to the states, the Feds get to spend exactly 0% of it whether the takings are up, down, left or right.

And, please, please, please try and understand what the GST is, we know that all Labor (and Green) stooges have a problem with this. The GST is a STATE (that is STATE) tax. Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan, Penny Wong, Kevin Rudd and Chis Bowen all sit in Federal Parliament, they are the ones always complaining about receipts being down, when indeed they are up. What the GST does or does not do is irrelevant to them (and this thread) because it's whole income goes to the states, the Feds get to spend exactly 0% of it whether the takings are up, down, left or right.

You have a way with words, sir.  The GST is a FEDERAL TAX, imposed by the previous Howard government.  Its proceeds may well go to the States, but the states did not introduce it, or operate it.

You have a way with words, sir.  The GST is a FEDERAL TAX, imposed by the previous Howard government.  Its proceeds may well go to the States, but the states did not introduce it, or operate it.

Okay, so the ATO collect the tax at a federal level, and yes the federal government implemented it but the fact is, as you say 100% of the proceeds go to the states. An increase in such (by rate or base) will not help provide a balanced federal budget.

We can tell you're on the government's side... The current budget deficit, no need for examples, just use real figures, they're real easy to find is $30.1 billion. That is the figure quoted in the 2013 PEFO documentation.

It is possible to reduce expenditure without removing too much from the overall economy. For example if you're careful in cutting company taxes and employment goes up you can generate an overall gain in income from income tax. An incoming government could spend less by demolishing the clean energy finance corporation, and other non essential service areas.

And, please, please, please try and understand what the GST is, we know that all Labor (and Green) stooges have a problem with this. The GST is a STATE (that is STATE) tax. Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan, Penny Wong, Kevin Rudd and Chis Bowen all sit in Federal Parliament, they are the ones always complaining about receipts being down, when indeed they are up. What the GST does or does not do is irrelevant to them (and this thread) because it's whole income goes to the states, the Feds get to spend exactly 0% of it whether the takings are up, down, left or right.

Oh dear, the patronising, rude, Aaron is back.

Was there anything in my post that indicated I didn't understand what the GST was?  It's actually a jointly administered tax (as Valvegear says) - the Commonwealth imposes it on behalf of the states but the states don't really have the control in how it's administered apart from agreeing to the rate etc.  And the Commonwealth has ultimate say on the way the GST is distributed, hence Western Australia moaning for the last five years about not getting back what they put in.  So really what Howard did was say "here's your GST and it's the end of special purpose Commonwealth grants" but in reality the feds are still pulling the strings.

Read my post again, I was using $20 billion as an example figure, I didn't say it was a fact.  There's nothing in my post that demonstrates bias towards one or the other side, really all I was trying to say is that the amount of money sloshing around in both the general economy and with government revenues is affected by many factors including CAD, borrowings, etc.  Really, Aaron, you need to make more of an effort to stop attacking people for what you perceive to be their weaknesses and grow up a bit.

Actually I have to clarify something, the article I read about the loss of GST revenues was talking about the loss due to direct web purchases from overseas. They were talking about a loss of $620 million in revenues - which seems like a lot but apparently it's not.

What's the impact of falling (depositors) interest rates on the budget given

1. There is less 'interest' income declared therefore less tax paid

2. Anyone on government benefits with interest bearing investments earns less and therefore may be entitled to more from the government

3. Those who spend income derived from interest are getting less therefore have less to spend which has flow on effects

Those people do exist, that's true.  When I was doing Job Network-type rubbish many years ago Johnny Howard's bout of low interest rates (following commencement of the "War on Terror") pushed lots of semi-retired people back onto the dole and onto my case-load.  Lots of those people were totally unprepared for the low-interest rate environment and they were having to eat into their capital to survive; I'd imagine that we would be having a similar situation now with people who might have their money tied up in cash investments doing poorly.

In theory these losers are outweighed by the super low interest rate 'winners', mainly being people loaded up on unsustainable debt like first home-owners with jumbo mortgages and small-time landlords leveraged to the hilt.

I am thinking of running a book on the post-election activity.

If, as seems distinctly possible, the Opposition wins the election and forms the next Government, how many days will elapse before the inevitable comment that,  "The previous Government left things a lot worse than we thought, so we won't be able to keep some of our promises."
It happens every time.

I spotted a picture of Tony Abbott's facebook page today showing his PT session with the boys at Robertson Barracks.
Good PR but I wonder if the PTI staff set up a special session for him?  No doubt they would have let him have it.

I am thinking of running a book on the post-election activity.

If, as seems distinctly possible, the Opposition wins the election and forms the next Government, how many days will elapse before the inevitable comment that,  "The previous Government left things a lot worse than we thought, so we won't be able to keep some of our promises."
It happens every time.

Standard Operating Proceedure (SOP) as they used to say at an employer I worked at.

Frankly there's a whole lot of things they need to dump anyway as their promises are actually more expensive than the Labor Party's:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/labor-seizes-on-economist-prediction-of-30-billion-shortfall/4906924

Before anyone jumps on me, it's from a fairly reputable source and it's just an indication that there's been (to quote the Simpsons) "A lot of crazy promises" by both sides.  The paid parental leave scheme is an obvious HUGE ticket item and I just can't see it being implemented in its current form.

Frankly there's a whole lot of things they need to dump anyway as their promises are actually more expensive than the Labor Party's:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/labor-seizes-on-economist-prediction-of-30-billion-shortfall/4906924

Before anyone jumps on me, it's from a fairly reputable source and it's just an indication that there's been (to quote the Simpsons) "A lot of crazy promises" by both sides.  The paid parental leave scheme is an obvious HUGE ticket item and I just can't see it being implemented in its current form.

I can see the Liberal's implementing it exactly as it is, that are just that stubborn and set in their ways. They'll just slash and burn something we actually need to pay for it!

Personally I think the Liberal's have made too many expensive or poorly thought out promises on purpose. Six months in they drag out the old story of "budget in worse than expected deficit due to Labour's mismanagement" then set to work axing all the programs they had no real intention to do anyway ! They'll never cut road projects or giving money to the rich, so that just leaves Hospitals, Schools, their not properly costed NBN plan, ARTC funding, Welfare/Pensions, the "Green Army".

I can see the Liberal's implementing it exactly as it is, that are just that stubborn and set in their ways. They'll just slash and burn something we actually need to pay for it!

Personally I think the Liberal's have made too many expensive or poorly thought out promises on purpose. Six months in they drag out the old story of "budget in worse than expected deficit due to Labour's mismanagement" then set to work axing all the programs they had no real intention to do anyway ! They'll never cut road projects or giving money to the rich, so that just leaves Hospitals, Schools, their not properly costed NBN plan, ARTC funding, Welfare/Pensions, the "Green Army".

Personal I think (as I've mentioned before) Medicare items will take a huge hit because they affect people who (mostly) wouldn't have voted Liberal to begin with; it's probably more politically palatable to increase the gap than it is to completely abolish them.  It's also likely there'll be a lot of cuts in the public service to areas that aren't in alignment to the Abbott agenda (as you say) like the environment, and public health - it's also really easy to blame the mis-management of public health on the states so that's on the 'must-do' list.  NBN will be cancelled no doubt but really that's only affecting rural and remote people who don't already have broadband and they'll always vote for the coalition anyway.  People like Malcolm Turnbull were really reluctant to criticise the NBN roll-out because they knew it would be a boon to rural people but the huge expense involve in fibre-to-the-home means it must be cancelled, no questions asked.

I also think employment programs such as Job Service Australia will be chopped to the bone because if they follow a true dry Tory agenda then inflation is ALWAYS more important than the scrap-heap of the unemployed; likewise PBS will probably be tweaked to restrict access to some of the more expensive treatments.  There's also a lot of Commonwealth-funded welfare programs provided by community services like "Personal Helpers and Mentors" (among others) highly likely to go because only the most disadvantaged will miss them and again, they're really unlikely to have voted for the coalition.

I feel we're also likely to see steep increases in the cost of going to university although maybe this is overdue... lots of industries are drowning in graduates anyway; again, that will probably increase the pool of unemployed if poorer people can't access higher education but again, Tony as a dry conservative would not see higher education as a Commonwealth priority.

One item where there is very clear ground between the parties is urban transport infrastructure. The ALP will support it, the Coalition apparently won't. Given the almost certain change of Government, this is cold comfort to the strap hangers in capital cities who will have to depend on their State Governments to find some cash. In the case of Melbourne, deferral of the Melbourne Metro will preclude any thought of new lines to places like the Airport, Doncaster and Rowville and the south eastern corridor to Dandenong and beyond. Looks like fellow V/Line passengers from Gippsland will have to look forward to heading through the outer suburbs at crawling pace for a generation?

Maybe Tim Fischer will have to get on the phone to Tony Abbott?

I have a lot of sympathy for what you are saying there but the reality is that Dandenong triplication was really only considered under Bracks and even then only briefly - they decided they had other priorities.  Regional Rail Link got the green light instead, arguably just as pressing but it came with the bonus of that green-fields connection between Werribee West and Deer Park so that provides a future option for opening up the land along that corridor for development (which it already is anyway).  I don't think Dandenong is even on the radar of the Napthine administration given the seats the need to retain are actually along the Frankston corridor; it certainly wouldn't figure on the radar of the incoming Abbott government.  It's going to be all about $$$ for toll-ways, they've made that perfectly clear.

Tim Fisher is a nice guy and a pro-rail bloke but the reality is that nobody in the coalition will listen to him.  In a similar vein, Malcolm Turnbull is a strong tram advocate (apparently he uses Sydney public transport on a regular basis) but I don't see that he'll have much influence on these things in an Abbott administration given Abbott's already established bias against public transport as an outdated and socialist concept.

Short answer: Expect V/Line trains to be crawling behind the all-stops Dandy trains for years to come yet.