Ask not what the Treasurer can do for you

[nero_bolt]

The federal budget is not about how the government can maintain your lifestyle

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/money/planning/ask-not-what-the-treasurer-can-do-for-you-20140525-38...

Unless you are handing out mountains of cash, a federal budget is rarely popular. Even the term "budget" is distasteful to many Australians who generally avoid running one with their own household finances. So it's little wonder when one appears each year that we have no control over, we're a little uncomfortable.

The recent federal budget, however, has uncovered a new dimension in unpopularity. I've watched and read with interest the commentary this week surrounding the budget and there is a theme, phrase and question that appears to pop up regularly. I heard it repeated again on Q&A as Joe Hockey faced a community at western Sydney. That theme or question is "How will I maintain my lifestyle?"

Now let me just state here I'm not advocating everything within the recent federal budget. I'm as cynical as the next voter when it comes to politicians and the public purse.

However, I'm curious as to why a significant portion of the population appears to support this notion that the government's job is to maintain our lifestyles.

Now, I acknowledge here that simply surviving is not always easy for the minority that are suffering genuine setbacks and need to be supported financially by society. As a society I believe we will be judged on how we look after those that are unable to look after themselves. But there is a big difference between supporting those that are unable to support themselves and helping people maintain their lifestyles.

I believe the wrong question is currently being asked of our politicians. Instead of asking the Treasurer, "how will I maintain my lifestyle?" the question should be pointed at the majority of us to answer that for ourselves.

Perhaps the first question we need to ask ourselves should be, "is my lifestyle sustainable?" The second should be, "will it give me the future I want?"

If the answer is no to either of those questions, then it's up to you to take control of your finances and do something about it. Not the government. Doing something about it means looking at your own budget, what you are spending on and taking control of your own financial situation.

Perhaps when you do that, you will discover that you may need to go without some luxuries and mod-cons that your current earning capacity really can't support.

But it will be a conscious choice rather than feeling that you're forced into it. However, it should also mean you're able to choose to spend on other things that are important and valuable to you. The key word is choice.

When we look to the government to maintain our lifestyles, we are really setting ourselves up for disappointment and failure. Instead, by becoming a conscious consumer with our own budget who takes responsibility for our own lifestyles then anything extra received from the government is a bonus that matters little if it is taken away when the next government is ushered in.

Let's ensure our leaders face the tough questions when it comes to the budget and the public purse.

However, when it comes to money and maintaining our lifestyles, let's decide to do something about that ourselves.  ***

 ** sadly I dont think that this will happen with the welfare and hand out mentality we have breed and the socialist left attitude that we are seeing in this country*** 

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/money/planning/ask-not-what-the-treasurer-can-do-for-you-20140525-38...

[bella_again]

I think the biggest issue is that many pollies are out of touch with reality.  I'd like to know exactly what luxuries do you want everyone to give up?  Saying that people need to budget better is the biggest cop out and really just shows how out of touch people can be.  You can't budget with something you don't have...It's not a matter of budgeting for people on low incomes, the reality is they don't have enough.  They are not living beyond their means, what a stupid statement....

How hard is that to understand.  What would you like them stop, stop eating, stop having a roof over their heads?  It's  a delusion to think that people can make their lives better when they have nothing to make it better with.  Just like the idea that 800,000 people can get a job when their are only 140,000 job vacancies.

It drives me nuts when people do finally swallow their pride and get assistance through a charity that then sends them to financial counselling only to discover the problem isn't that they are wasting money.  The problem is they don't have enough!!!  Then they discover there is still no help. It will get worse, people will become more desperate and with cuts to services and housing the future is bleak for the under privileged. 

The government ought to be ashamed of themselves, you don't crucify the weak to become rich as a nation. As far as I am concerned they are morally bankrupt.  They wouldn't understand what its like to have nothing nor do they care..  I've never spoken about any government in this way but this one just leaves me appalled.  It's not about raising revenue, they could have done that without crucifying the poor, no its about lining their pockets. With millions coming into Hockey's household yearly I bet his food bill is enough to fed at least 100 homeless. 

[fourandsixpants]

i agree lind about this mobster lot being out of touch with reality. Probably has a lot to do with how they can't speak properly too - being that they all have a silver spoon stuck in their mouth and then there's the issue of their hearing loss from the ear boxing they are getting in Parliament Question time and through the media from the people.

[monman12]

NW I understand and generally agree with your OP (quote),  sadly though a good proportion of the electorate (and some here) do not,. This is highlighted by this comment from the thread:

"Debt: the big lie on which Abbott built a budget

The truth is, the Commonwealth doesn’t have a debt problem. Estimated net debt in 2013-14 is $197.8 billion, or 12 per cent of gross domestic product – one of the lowest of the mature industrial countries."

 I presume it is not the Commonwealth but Australia that is mentioned,  and I would assume the author does not appreciate the term  deficit , or chooses to avoid it.

The  Australian

AUSTRALIA will need massive budget savings of about $90 billion if it is to stabilise its government debt by 2030, International Monetary Fund estimates show.

ABC Fact Check investigates Mr Hockey's claims about Australia's level of spending and debt.

The first graph, titled 'Change in Real Expenditure', supports Mr Hockey's claim that Australia's spending rate is the highest among the 17 nations surveyed

The second IMF graph, titled 'Change in Net Debt', is the basis of the Treasurer's other claim - that growth in Australia's net debt is the third highest among the 17 nations surveyed. On this point, he's also correct.

The verdict

Mr Hockey's claims about Australia's forecast levels of debt and deficits may be "pessimistic", but they are consistent with Treasury modelling.

His comments on growth in spending and debt compared to the 17 nations surveyed by the IMF check out..

 A quick outside of others comments and C&P:   Why do you think A3 that  it costs more  (10 yr bond rate interest)  for Australia  to raise money on the international market (3.77%)  than for instance the UK (2.65%),  when their debt to GDP is far higher than ours?

nɥºɾ

[debra9275]

heres the full article

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-13/joe-hockey-correct-on-australia-debt-and-spending/5310736

[fourandsixpants]

that's funny debs.....because monman can join Mr Hockey in the hypocrites corner. ...what, monman C&Ping?!! LOL

[lind9650]

I am still waiting for nero_wulf to answer my questions.

Instead he repeatedly harps about the budget with the same, the same, the same under a different name.

Why not answer a pensioners question or at least debate the options of Joe Hockeys ptoposals?

Are my questions to hard to answer?

Erica

[polksaladallie]

It will never happen, Erica.  

[boris1gary]

maybe one of the LNP cheer squad can explain this while they are at it........maybe take a break from blaming the unemployed, pensioners, the sick and disabled.....

11:02am: While the country debates what fair and what's totally not in the budget, one very wealthy Australian has managed to minimise their tax.

Heath Aston reports that Roman Lanis, a senior lecturer in accounting and tax at the University of Technology Sydney has found the combined arms of Westfield pay an ''effective corporate tax rate'' of just eight cent....

(On average, the top 200 sharemarket-listed companies in Australia pay 22 cents in the dollar.)

While no one is suggesting Westfield has done anything illegal, there are calls for an inquiry into corporate tax.

United Voice national secretary David O'Byrne says: "It's not illegal but it's immoral".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-may-29-2014-20140529-395dv.html#...

[lind9650]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

It will never happen, Erica.  

---

I am sure that you are right, polks.

Some peole are incapable of discussing anything in a civilised manner. All they can do to stirr the pot, is copy and paste some controversial reports from a Newspaper.

BTW, I did not vote for Labor either.

Erica

[fourandsixpants]

The Australian Sex party is refusing to take the government's budget position lying down. ..........