Why are we blaming Hockey and Abott?

[the_bob_delusion]

Obviously the money has got to come from somewhere. Where do you want to take it from???

[izabsmiling]

---

@matthew_mark_luke_and_bob wrote:

Obviously the money has got to come from somewhere. Where do you want to take it from???

---

they have lied and mismanaged our money and now want to sell us all out 

[lakeland27]

---

@poddster wrote:

---

@crystal**flake wrote:
A quick question.............should a country be run like a business? I think it should be but people around me say no way.

---

Precisely.

If a business is not self sufficient than it fails. The same for a country or a household.

If you live on credit you are "owned"

---

 thats a falsehood. every country has debt.  ours is among the lowest in fact, even after hockey doubled it in six months .

[crystal**flake]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@crystal**flake wrote:
A quick question.............should a country be run like a business? I think it should be but people around me say no way.

---

No Crystal, a country shouldn't be run like a business to make a profit for a few.  

A country is a society not a business.  A country needs ot circulate it's wealth and spend to improve services and infrastructure for the benefit of the people.  A country does not need a large bank balance while creating a divide between the haves and have nots or affords and afford nots.

---

But who ever is in power, shouldn't they try and lower the debt?

[fourandsixpants]

Yes......like we are supposed to be calmed when high earners get hit by a deficit tax......yeah riiiiight. They pay accts big bucks to avoid all this.

Big miners take it offshore. Everyone knows this.

[cherry*135]

Lower the debt in a fair way, not target the poor working class.

Not forgetting the electon promises Abbott has broken as well.

[izabsmiling]

they aren't allowed to starve their citizens rather break a promise to Wealthy mine owners

they won't lower the debt either...they are taking us into a depression

[freakiness]

---

@crystal**flake wrote:

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@crystal**flake wrote:
A quick question.............should a country be run like a business? I think it should be but people around me say no way.

---

No Crystal, a country shouldn't be run like a business to make a profit for a few.  

A country is a society not a business.  A country needs ot circulate it's wealth and spend to improve services and infrastructure for the benefit of the people.  A country does not need a large bank balance while creating a divide between the haves and have nots or affords and afford nots.

---

But who ever is in power, shouldn't they try and lower the debt?

---

At times yes they should lower the debt.  At other times they should increase the debt.  Debt is cyclical and necessary.

The article by Greg Jericho explained a lot in terms of debt and deficit a few days ago.  I think part of it was posted under budget - go shopping type of thread.  

A business exists to make profit. A government exists to oversee the country and implement policy to manage the country.

[fourandsixpants]

freddie:

It's OK we realize there's a lot of people out there angry because they were conned into believing the propoganda from Abbott and Co, even his shock jock buddies are deserting him, they must feel like fools.

................................................................................................................................................................................................................

what an unbelievable state country of affairs. 

The propaganda 'effort' is crazy!!! 

[debra9275]

Iza, I think I've said this before, I love saving money, but I don't starve my family so I can do it

[cherry*135]

Ross Gittins, SMH, Economics Editor

The more of the budget's fine print I get through, the less impressed I am. It's not a budget so much as a flick-pass.

Before the election, Abbott and Hockey claimed repeatedly to be able to return the budget to surplus by eliminating waste. In truth, they've identified and eliminated little or no genuine waste.

Rather, they've defunded worthy causes (grants to charities and cultural activities, overseas aid), imposed new user charges (Medicare benefits, the real interest rate on HECS), whacked up existing user charges (pharmaceutical benefits, university fees) and tightened up means-testing (family tax benefit B).

But a lot of the longer-term savings come from lowering the indexation of payments from a wage-related index to the consumer price index. In the case of pensions, this will cause the relative value of pensions to fall continuously over time, pushing the aged and disabled below the poverty line.

And note this. Hockey justified his exclusion of the cost of superannuation tax concessions from his efforts to curb the allegedly unsustainable growth in the cost of population ageing by saying tax expenditures would be considered as part of the coming review of taxation. In truth, he did fiddle with tax expenditures when it suited him (the mature age worker tax offset and the dependent spouse tax offset).

The budget was a giant attempt to get back to surplus solely by cutting spending and not increasing taxes. It failed. Not so much because of the temporary deficit levy or the resumption of indexing the fuel excise, but because the cumulative $80 billion saving from short-changing the states on schools and hospitals - almost a quarter of the total saving - will have to be covered by increased state taxation.

A tax increase flick-passed to the states is a tax increase avoided? Any serious increase in state tax revenue would have to be made possible by the feds, in any event.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/less-to-budget-than-meets-the-eye-20140518-38hut.html#ixzz3298yJM2O