see above....and she wonders why tax revenue is down......LOL....very few small to medium size companies are making money and are struggling with higher costs of compliance.....

You're*

Seven deadly Gillard sins

Robert Gottliebsen30 Apr, 8:22 AM96
PoliticsElectionIndustriesSmall Business (SME)Resources and Energy

If the only mistake the Gillard government had made was creating a deficit out of yet another set of bad Treasury numbers then the likely next prime minister, Tony Abbott, and his looming treasurer Joe Hockey would face a straightforward task.

But the current government’s mistakes go much deeper and will require an entirely different approach. This morning I will list my seven deadly Gillard economic sins and invite readers to comment and add to them via conversation. Tomorrow I will list the actions Tony Abbott must consider with the same invitation to readers.

– Sin number one is rarely mentioned in mainstream commentary: A dedicated and vicious campaign against small business, which is the main private employment creating sector of the economy. This was done via the Australian tax office which attacked small operators and refused to give many ABN numbers. Thousands of complex but useless regulations were introduced at the same time as the Gillard government promoted union dominated industrial relations laws that were designed for large business and made staff flexibility in small business much tougher. Independent contracting was actively discouraged (See: The cost of Labor’s contractor carnage, April 24; Paralysed in a tax office trap, April 24; and Call off the small business attack dogs, April 19).

– Sin number two: Actively fan the greatest government employment binge in Australia’s history. As the above link pointed out, the Institute of Public Affairs estimates that since the global financial crisis public sector industries have lifted their employment by 406,000. In fairness, not all the 406,000 people are employed by Canberra by increasing regulation, red tape, state government requirements and duplication, but the Gillard government was the main driver.

– Sin number three: Allowed the export of gas from Queensland, which under present extraction rules we did not have. Some of the export gas will now come from gas that was earmarked for Sydney and will help send NSW and later Victorian and Queensland domestic gas prices sky-high. The higher gas prices will be further boosted by actions of the NSW government. It’s a total mess (Leaky gas progress could lead to a NSW exodus, April 16).

– Sin number four: Encourage the return of cartel-style agreements between big builders and building unions in the commercial building sector sending the cost of building the new mines and government projects up substantially (Lend Lease and Leighton need a new toolkit, April 8).

– Sin number five: Pay no need heed to productivity in health. It’s all about handing out money. Rising heath expenditure is a key underlining reason for the deficits.

– Sin number six: Decide to be completely remote from business. Treasury took the same view. As a result Canberra had no idea what was happening in the business arena (particularly in mining) and most of the treasury business forecasts were wrong. Worse still, they spent the money that they incorrectly anticipated receiving. The strategy was modelled on the Keystone Kops.

– Sin number seven: Carbon was another Keystone Kops style fiasco. The Gillard government saddled Australia with an uncompetitive carbon price at the same time as a high dollar and rising electricity prices. They used much of the carbon money for social welfare and then later effectively slashed future carbon revenue, but did not cut back the spending. The carbon mess had little effect on emissions.

One of the reasons why so many big mistakes were made was that Julia Gillard turned out to be another Kevin Rudd. Rudd could not run a cabinet and Gillard’s supporters thought this would be her greatest asset. Instead she followed the Rudd decision making process on too many occasions.



Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/4/30/politics/seven-deadly-gillard-sins#ixzz2TOpvkhER

great positive contribution right there......;)

Doing my best :lol:

So I scrolled the previous page and couldn't find out where you had asked me a question.

I apologize as I may have missed it, so could you point it out again and I'll gladly answer it.

-PB

P.S. I hope you will be this critical with a Coalition Government in the future Batfink.

-PB

Wut. You can go online and get one in minutes.

Edit - I actually looked this up, and it's just the ATO not giving out ABN's to individual people who were wanting to become a 'subcontractor' working under conditions that reasonable people would consider should make them an employee, so no longer can an employer avoid dodging super + insurance (among other things) by pushing their workers into becoming subcontractors.

Edited by macktheknife: 16/5/2013 09:27:53 AM

I do believe that my former employer was the catalyst in getting this changed by being sued by the ATO for dodging paying super, payroll tax and leave to their essentially casual workforce.

if it's warranted i will for sure....if you hadn't noticed i hate career politicians......

\:d/ go for it tiger......at least you're having a go...!!!! right;)

Aren't they all career driven?

When was the last politician that actually gave a shit about what voters wanted?

To answer your question, it comes out of Foreign Aid, clearly, hence the cap.

Would it matter if they spent money in the foreign aid budget or in the immigration budget?

The same amount of money is being spent, by the same authority, for the same reasons, going to the same destination.

Don't see where the problem is?

Now before you go on about the "pats on the back" train of though, where exactly has this Government been talking up said spending as a way to win votes in September?

-PB

Abbott & Co. deny the request of an ALP MP to visit her sick daughter, then lie to cast doubt about her capabilities as a parent.

These are the people that will be leading our nation come September.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/mps-sick-child-furore-abbott-still-doesnt-get-it-says-pm-20130516-2jnme.html

http://www.theage.com.au/business/federal-budget/you-missed-the-best-news-in-the-budget-20130516-2jo1c.html

Well this thread is definitely getting the "Worst Thread of 2013" award.

If her daughter was so fucking ill she would have never left her to partake in the budget meetings.

It's tacky to sit through labors shit and request leave when it's finally liberals turn to speak.

Obviously she does not value the political process and thinks she can honour her respsonsibitlies as an MP on an ad hoc basis and take child leave when it suits.

I regret the liberals grant the 'pair' eventually, obviously the thing was a set up and she was using her daughters illness to score political points for women.

What a whore,, but that's what you get with labor, morally sick people who use their kids as tools to score votes.

:lol:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says carbon tax will go in Budget reply

PHILLIP HUDSON HERALD SUN

TONY Abbott's has made a hip-pocket election pitch to families and pensioners that they can keep most of the carbon tax compensation and get cheaper electricity and gas.

In his formal reply to the Budget, the Opposition Leader said the carbon tax will still be axed as promised if he becomes prime minister but he will keep about $4 billion a year in tax cuts and fortnightly family benefits and pension rises that he had previously planned to scrap.

Mr Abbott said he will pay for this with spending cuts worth $5 billion a year which will include dumping a family benefits supplement worth $210 for eligible singles and $350 for couples.

And despite promising no more changes to superannuation, Mr Abbott will freeze for two years Labor's planned increase in compulsory super paid by employers at 9.25 per cent.

He is also taking away a super tax cut worth up to $500 for low-income earners.

The Coalition is also prepared to sign up to all of the $43 billion in tax increases and spending cuts announced by Treasurer Wayne Swan in Tuesday's Budget, including axing the baby bonus.

Mr Abbott said while many of Labor's cuts were ''objectionable'' he blamed poor management by the government for the ''Budget emergency'' that would force him to accept them.

Mr Abbott said the election ''will be a tipping point in the life of our country''.

He promised families would have “cost of living relief”.

''The carbon tax will go but no one's personal tax will go up and no one's fortnightly pension or benefit will go down,'' Mr Abbott told Parliament.

''So with a change of government, your weekly and fortnightly budgets will be under less pressure as electricity prices fall; and gas prices fall and the carbon tax no longer cascades through our economy.''

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Mr Abbott should have detailed every Budget cut he planned to make, saying he had a secret plan to ''cut to the bone''.

Mr Abbott said he would keep the National Disability Insurance Scheme but suggested it could be changed to make it better reflect Productivity Commission recommendations.

But there was no promise to keep any of Labor's $9.8 billion in extra school funding, which the government attacked as ripping money away from schools.

Mr Abbott gave no more detail about how he would fully fund his more generous paid parental leave scheme which has come under fire as being too expensive from his own MPs and business which faces a tax rise to pay for it.

He instead said he would re-ignite tax reform and an overhaul of federal-state relations to reduce waste and duplication but in both cases any proposed changes would be taken to a subsequent election for approval.

Mr Abbott attacked Labor's broken promise to have a surplus and its seven years of deficits worth $220 billion.

''The government originally said that the deficit was `temporary'. With seven in a row, the Second World War was more temporary than this government's deficits.''

Mr Abbott's other cuts to pay for the carbon compensation included the previously announced plan to reduce the humanitarian intake by 6250 a year, slash the public service by 12,000 and cut a green loans scheme.

Mr Abbott said more spending cuts would be announced before the September 14 election and he did not rule out tax rises.

''Until we're on an honest path not just to surplus but to re-paying debt, an incoming Coalition government will resist new spending commitments that aren't fully funded, nearly always by offsetting expenditure reductions.''

''Many of the measures in the Budget are objectionable - the attacks on Medicare; the abolition of the baby bonus which the government had promised to never touch; robbing Peter to pay Paul on education; and forcing more businesses to do the tax paperwork monthly not just quarterly.''

''But thanks to Labor's poor management over five years, there is now a Budget emergency.''

''Far from cutting to the bone, we reserve the right to implement all of Labor's cuts, if needed, because it will take time to un-do all the damage this government has done.''


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-features/opposition-leader-tony-abbott-says-carbon-tax-will-go-in-budget-reply/story-fnho52jj-1226644789401

You missed the best news in the budget

May 16, 2013 - 1:01PM

Michael Pascoe

You can be forgiven for missing the best news in the federal budget. The vast majority of the media have and Wayne Swan – a man who would have trouble selling free beer - apparently isn't capable of explaining it. Or maybe he's missed it too.

Oh, you certainly will have read about it, a big figure featuring in all the obvious headlines, but it's highly unlikely you will have seen that the really good and important news from Tuesday night is that we're forecast to have a federal deficit of $18 billion in the new financial year and one of about $19.4 billion this year.

No, seriously, that the government is not trying to peg back the deficit in the 2013-14 should be welcomed by everyone whose first priority isn't doing whatever it takes to change the government.

Simplistic chanting

Having been subjected to abysmally simplistic “deficit bad, surplus good” chanting from both sides of politics over the past couple of years, where the political wedge and counter-wedge have overshadowed the economics, it's perhaps understandable that most commentary has gone along for the ride, suggesting that deficits this year and next year primarily represent budget failure instead of considerable relief.

Attempting to pull back from a $43.4 billion deficit in 2011-12 to nominal surplus this year was absurd. Dumb economics for silly political purposes, Wayne. It represented an unprecedented fiscal contraction that, if allowed to run its course and if not for some Treasury smoke and mirrors pulling forward and pushing back, could have stalled the economy. As it pans out, the $24 billion contraction achieved by trimming the deficit to $19.4 billion is itself without equal – a $24 billion turnaround, a hefty 1.6 per cent of GDP.

It's a moot point whether the deficit reduction efforts of state and federal governments or the strong currency has been the biggest brake on our economy over the past year. The Reserve Bank keeps politely mentioning it as a factor in cutting the cash rate to a record low in an attempt to sustain demand, but the pet shop seems to only have eyes on the currency on that score.

So before any business type whinges about the $19.4 billion deficit or the infamous $17 billion revenue “black hole”, please specify how much slower you would like our economy to be growing this financial year.

Affordable

Between the lines of Tuesday's budget is an admission that we can afford a deficit more than a surplus in 2013-14 and thus there is no real attempt to rein in the deficit in the immediate delicate period – that's planned for later years when some other treasurer has the job.

Net public demand – governments' collective impact on the economy - is taking half a per cent off GDP growth this year. (It's “only” half a per cent thanks to some fancy footwork by Treasury and what some of the states have been up to.) Allowing a similar federal deficit to roll on in the new financial year means net public demand is forecast as having zero impact on GDP, neither contributing to or subtracting from economic growth.

Because economics is all about measuring the change in the moving goal posts, that's an improvement of 0.5 per cent of GDP from this year, but Treasury still forecasts weaker economic growth of 2.75 per cent while the Reserve Bank is a bit more pessimistic at around 2.5 per cent. (That RBA forecast assumes the cash rate remains at 2.75 per cent – maybe Treasury is quietly betting on the RBA being forced to cut rates further, and therefore stimulating the economy that little quarter-per-cent more.)

Given Treasury's forecast of what else will be happening in the economy in the new financial year, we should be very grateful indeed for the $18 billion deficit. Achieving 2.75 per cent growth is dependent on household consumption growing by 3 per cent, up from 2.5 per cent this year, and our investment in dwellings jumping by 5 per cent compared with a meagre improvement of a half a per cent this year and shrinking by 3.6 per cent last year.

Big bet

Basically, keeping the economy growing at an “OK” rate is a big bet that if you give Australians cheap money, they will spend and buy houses. (Maybe that should be buy houses and spend, as new housing has a neat multiplier effect as carpets, white goods and bean bags are purchased to go in them and more tradies are employed to hopefully pick up some slack as fewer are needed for mine construction.)

It would not have been hard for Swan to have produced a lower forecast deficit next year. There is spending that could have been cut, a means test could have been applied to the child care rebate, tax rates could have been nudged up, but it would have been the wrong thing to do. Joe Hockey would have had the problem of dealing with the fallout from such further fiscal contraction, but it still would have been wrong and irresponsible.

Swan now is and Hockey next year will pay the price for dumbing down the role of fiscal policy. Assisted by ideological zealots on the far right and opportunistic shock jocks, they've managed to convince the public that government debt itself is a bad thing that must be paid off in total at the first opportunity.

The cycle

The real world is more complex than that. Over time, governments should run surpluses, sometimes big surpluses, but it's not a contradiction to suggest they also should happily borrow to maintain a level of gearing like just about any large corporation.

That debt should be used to invest in areas that can show a demonstrable economic return. The easy example – as promoted by various present and past Reserve Bank board members – is for the government to use its strong balance sheet to borrow very cheaply to fund infrastructure that will deliver a double-digit return on investment.

Taking that a step further, the government should fund it, have the private sector run it (because the private sector does tend to run things better than government), and then, when that infrastructure has been de-risked (when we know how many cars really will go through a tunnel), the thing should be flogged off and the money raised used to build more infrastructure and continue the cycle.

Our massive superannuation industry would love such an outlet for its massive pile of money. Kept to a sensible limit – up to about 20 per cent of GDP has been suggested to me as an acceptable and prudent maximum - it would not hurt our credit rating and it would build a stronger, richer nation.

Good buy

It can be argued that some of the current government net debt – which is at about half the suggested 20 per cent – is being used for infrastructure, but most has not. Instead it bought an unemployment rate that starts with a '5', it avoided a recession. Personally, I think that was a reasonable purchase. Those complaining loudest about business being less than robust now should be the most thankful for it.

With all the benefit of hindsight, it's likely we could have spent a bit less to maintain acceptable employment levels and some of the stuff that money was spent on and continues to be spent on is stupid, but the big picture stuff is sound. Despite the current and past popularity polls, it's likely that history will judge that Peter Costello's last two terms as treasurer saw more important mistakes – sins of omission and commission - than Wayne Swan's two terms.

But that comment will immediately degenerate along party political lines. Let them go at it and just be grateful we're not trying to immediately shrink next year's deficit – and hope that Joe Hockey won't try to either.

Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor.



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/federal-budget/you-missed-the-best-news-in-the-budget-20130516-2jo1c.html#ixzz2TS1aD5AU

well ballbagz... a career politician is like a david bradbury....goes through the labor system......unions,local council,mayor of council,then into the back benches in state or federal...that's the system in NSW......never had a real job outside of the "SYSTEM" always been a public employee.......then get their snout in the trough for the benefits.................

many of you should look into the past Labor government in NSW and the 13 years of corruption....you could make a TV series out of it.......and no matter which side of politics you lean they never ever get prosecuted....funny about that isn't it??????

awww c'mon Matt are you on Staff at the herald sun these days??????????????????

there is a word there....INITIAL.... probably when they got the full truth.........](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Says everything about what the Liberal Government will be like in 1 headline.

Steal from the poor to give to the rich.

I think that 1 headline defies logic, how does one 'pay' for a 'cut'?

What full truth was missed in the initial request?

Pyne lied, plain & simple. How can you claim to be against political lies, but are now making excuses for a proven liar?

The cuts are taken from services, benefits and superannuation that are for low income earners.