[zaph]

swan pulls all the spending into this year so achieving a budget surplus next year is doable.

Quote

ECONOMISTS doubt the federal budget will return to surplus because the savings are not large enough and growth forecasts are optimistic.

The government said it would meet its target for a budget surplus in 2012/13 after making new savings worth $11.5 billion over four years to make up for a shortfall in revenue caused by by deteriorating global economic conditions.

http://www.heraldsun...v-1226209387493

and here's the cuts and increased taxes

Quote

TAX breaks for overseas executive and dependent spouses will be cut and the public service ordered to find more savings as the Federal Government makes a determined push to return the Budget to surplus.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has also announced cuts to the baby bonus and a deferral of four tax reforms as part of a plan to help deliver $11.5 billion of new savings over the next four years.

The measures are aimed at boosting the budget bottom line over the forward estimates period, allowing the government to plug a $20 billion revenue hole created by deteriorating global economic and financial conditions

http://www.heraldsun...v-1226208990923

i do like some of the measures.

Swan for world best treasurer two years in a row?

[cobran20]

zaph, on 29 November 2011 - 06:58 AM, said:

Swan for world best treasurer two years in a row?

Goose could increase GST and force the states to drop payroll & stamp duty. Then there is land tax...

[Solomon]

So it doesn't matter if you have a massive budget deficit this year.
In fact the bigger the better.
Because that gets all the expenditure out of the way, and people are happy.
Hopefully with some spillover into 2012/2013.

Because then next year - hey presto - we don't spend anywhere near as much and make a surplus.
Just like we promised.

It still doesn't change the fact that revenue for the Federal Government has dropped dramatically, and it isn't going to get any better, because the world is deleveraging.

Yeah. That's brilliant logic.
And don't worry we will all fall for it.
For they are jolly good fellows!!!

[Mr Medved]

The video was worth the two minutes to watch Terry McCrann effectively call Wayne Swan a dickhead.

Baby bonus cut is a bit like the cut last financial year to the medical tax offset. The gubment will try and "nickle and dime" the masses while going after politically soft targets (i.e., high-paid executives and foreigners). The slow squeeze is continuing...

[Mr Medved]

Solomon, on 29 November 2011 - 07:20 AM, said:

It still doesn't change the fact that revenue for the Federal Government has dropped dramatically, and it isn't going to get any better, because the world is deleveraging.

Yeah, good luck with their revenue targets if they are cutting spending and sending people to the dole queues or contractors out of business.

[zaph]

Mr Medved, on 29 November 2011 - 07:31 AM, said:

Yeah, good luck with their revenue targets if they are cutting spending and sending people to the dole queues or contractors out of business.

no. no. no. we are getting 'efficiency dividends' from government departments, surely that means they are making us money, not costing us. just gotta love the language.

the treasury seems to have included stock market prices into their forecasts of lower CGT. have they included house prices into the same CGT forecasts?

anyway it doesn't matter if actual figures are worse than forecast as long as the 'budget' figures indicate a surplus then all is well.

i've just looked at my own household budget and forecast a surplus after years of deficit. i swear i'll give up smoking, drinking, work lunches and i'll even get rid of the car; i also predict my pay will increase 10k pa. bingo, surplus (budget)! lets talk in a year.

[tor]

Mr Medved, on 29 November 2011 - 07:30 AM, said:

high-paid executives and foreigners

phew am not an executive!

For all the land tax fans. Do you think that a land tax would be implemented in any way which is even remotely close to the thing that you think it should be or do you think it would only ever be done as an increase in tax revenues?

[sydney3000]

We are 18 months away from the finish line. That is a long time for people to shift from aspiring immigrant to welfare eligibility, full-timer to part-timer, income earner to newstart recipient, worker to retiree, spender to saver. Wayne Swan will have to do a lot more over the coming months to make that surplus promise stick.

This post has been edited by sydney3000: 29 November 2011 - 08:27 AM

[cobran20]

tor, on 29 November 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

phew am not an executive!

For all the land tax fans. Do you think that a land tax would be implemented in any way which is even remotely close to the thing that you think it should be or do you think it would only ever be done as an increase in tax revenues?

I can't think that far in the future. I can't see neither major party having the b@lls to do it in the foreseeable future.

[staringclown]

The cuts to the APS will definitely be felt but I don't think they'll be devastating. Haven't heard talk of any redundancies yet. Training and travel will be difficult to come by for a while I suspect. Last year IT cut consultants by 50% and business doubled their number. The individual contractors in IT at least are usually SME's and can't be got rid of. It'll be good to see some executives stopped from outsourcing their roles.

Quote

For all the land tax fans. Do you think that a land tax would be implemented in any way which is even remotely close to the thing that you think it should be or do you think it would only ever be done as an increase in tax revenues?

They would have to sell a land tax as a revenue neutral package. It would be a redistribution of wealth of course however if they enacted compensation for 90% of the population similar to the carbon tax it could work. I don't expect they will introduce it any time soon.

[tom]

zaph, on 29 November 2011 - 07:54 AM, said:

the treasury seems to have included stock market prices into their forecasts of lower CGT. have they included house prices into the same CGT forecasts?

I don't even know if it is that simple around housing.

Most investors rightfully see houses as a buy and hold investment. This is due chiefley to transaction costs.

It is possible if they spook because house prices fall say 20% and the future is not looking too bright from there that cgt revenues around housing increase. I should add I am guessing here... Like it or otherwise plenty of investors around housing have bought for more than a 20% discount from current prices and some plan to never sell. If we start getting comparisons in the paper to Japan or like during the GFC comparisons of our stockmarket to the great depression some are going to sell...

[tom]

tor, on 29 November 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

For all the land tax fans. Do you think that a land tax would be implemented in any way which is even remotely close to the thing that you think it should be or do you think it would only ever be done as an increase in tax revenues?

It should be used to reduce developer levies and other front end housing costs like council levies but they are a target demographic that is not popular here let alone in the general public.

But in the current climate I agree with staringclown if it was to happen (outside chance) the only chance of it would be people getting a fistfull of cash back anyway and it being revenue nuetral. This will be the case until the icecream really starts hitting the fan in the economy. That will be the first opportunity to introduce taxes which materially effect large swathes of the population negatively. Untill then they all have to be win win taxes unless you are a soft target as Mr M suggests.

[cobran20]

cobran20, on 29 November 2011 - 07:19 AM, said:

...Then there is land tax...