The "good debt, bad debt" thing is a general term used in ecenomics, business and in personal finance ( ie debt councelling etc. ) on a regular basis. It defines debt that will have a positive future ecenomic impact on the borrower as good ( think purchasing a home or business assett ) and debt that finances immediate ongoing expenditure on consumables or daily living expenses ( borrowing to pay for a shiny new SUV when the old when is still running OK ) as bad. Its not a new idea.
The idea that this ecenomic measure would be applied to welfare payments is insensative and innappropriate. On a purely ecenomic basis welfare payments are usually all spent within the local economy, providing a stimulus effect, encouraging employment, preventing people from engaging in crime, and contributing to housing payments to wealthy, negatively geared property owners through rents etc. Its not as simple as the "good debt, bad debt" thing.
We need to have a public disscussion on how we are spending ( or overspending ) our national income and our ever increasing debt. This needs to go much deeper than simply looking at welfare. There are structural issues right through the economy that have become distorted over time and need addressing. The house prices in Melbourne and Sydney are a glaring example. These are being driven by ( taxpayer funded ? ) negativly geared investors and overseas buyers. Another area of cencern is the ageing population. Allowing young people to use their superannuation to fund the deposit on artificially inflated, expensive houses in Melbourne and Sydney will be counter productive for both house prices and the future retirement income of our aging population, resulting in more elderly on the pension ( bad debt ? ) than would otherwise occur.
Of couse these discussions are much too complicated for a two minute sound bite on the news, so we have the simpleton " good debt, bad debt" political spin instead.
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
