We were recently reminded by the Commission of Audit of the immense challenge to restore the Budget over the long term.
Six years of Labor delivered:
Six years of Labor delivered:
- five record Budget deficits,
- a further $123 billion in deficits for the next four years, and
- debt projected to reach at least $667 billion.
Today we are releasing a document that sets out in detail the legacy that Australians have been left by Labor.
While the Coalition Government did not create this mess, we are determined to do the responsible thing by all Australians.
The next step in the Abbott Government’s Economic Action Strategy to build a strong, prosperous economy will be the release of the Budget next Tuesday night.
The Government will face up to the difficult but necessary decisions to repair the Budget so that we can build a stronger economy.
It is in building a stronger economy that we can create more jobs, help small businesses and families and ensure there are more opportunities for all Australians.
Regards,
Mathias Cormann
Minister for Finance
The next step in the Abbott Government’s Economic Action Strategy to build a strong, prosperous economy will be the release of the Budget next Tuesday night.
The Government will face up to the difficult but necessary decisions to repair the Budget so that we can build a stronger economy.
It is in building a stronger economy that we can create more jobs, help small businesses and families and ensure there are more opportunities for all Australians.
Regards,
Mathias Cormann
Minister for Finance
64 Pages of the sad and sorry mess that Labor left Australia in
Or the 64 page PDF is here
nobody with half a brain swallows that anymore, they now know that hockey has doubled the deficit since september 
B-b-b-but the economy is on fire! Australia's going to be repossessed!
But enough of the lefty Abbott-bashing - let's look at some evidence for our terrible spiralling debt.
First up, our level of debt to GDP has been remarkably consistent, sitting around 10% since the 70s (aside from the mid-90s where it blew out to around double that under Abbott's economic hero John Howard). Certainly for the last decade it's pretty much flatlined at around 11%, where it currently sits. The OECD average is around 50%. Compared with the UK, New Zealand, the US, Israel and every other developed economy, we're utterly a... So: no huge debt blowout.
Our interest payments are also completely tiny and entirely manageable: our interest rate is miniscule, sitting under 0.5% (this is why the whole "like households, governments need to leave within their means" argument is bull**bleep**: they have different responsibilities from and enjoy far better economic conditions than households).
There's also the tiny point that the numbers that Hockey is using to justify his budget are, to be kind, made up: more specifically, he's using "out-of-date forecasts from the beginning of December", according to BusinessWeek's Michael Pascoe, instead of the actual current data.
And while government public debt isn't by definition a bad thing - borrowing money to stimulate the economy or protect services in times of crisis is often the most responsible thing that a government can do, which is why our level of debt rightfully skyrocketed during WWII - the fact remains that our debt burden is scary-sounding numbers that translate as negligible percentages.
Now, there are those who argue that all debt is bad and that things could be better. This is largely nonsense, and takes as its premise that public money is not collected for the benefit of the people who contribute that money.
To use Abbott's own ridiculous governments-as-households analogy: you could have more money to put away in savings if you stopped buying food and clothing, but a) being hungry and naked is not preferable to being fed, clothed and managing your debt responsibly, and b) ultimately, what's the point of money if it's not to exchange for things we need? That's literally the entire reason we have the stuff.
B-b-b-but it's the debt, not the spending: why the budget is bleeding.
The trouble with relying upon C&P which you do not read, and/or you do not understand, is that you end up posting biased rubbish e.g.
"First up, our level of debt to GDP has been remarkably consistent, sitting around 10% since the 70s (aside from the mid-90s where it blew out to around double that under Abbott's economic hero John Howard). Certainly for the last decade it's pretty much flatlined at around 11%, where it currently sits."
Thus by extrapolation the whole post, and subsequent ones, will be viewed as being as reliable!
"Last decade flatlined at around 11%" really? the Circus would appear to have achieved what could be described as a debt big-top.
Looks like the OECD also have a different idea of FLATLINE:
nɥºɾ
