SA Footy

I thought it might be useful to have a thread dedicated to the Budget - for example,

Where is money being spent?
What is being cut?
What are the major announceables, and what is in the fine print?
What are the implications for South Australia?
Where are the pork barrels and the pre-election (early) sweeteners for marginal seats?
How have the political commentators assessed the decisions?
Links to relevant articles

etc etc

Bit early mate

But I see Swan is already trying to claim accolades about bringing in a surplus before he has even given it - talk about premature *************
Mind you - it is a great achievement for a Labor Govt, especially this incompetent one

Jimmy_041 wrote:Bit early mate

But I see Swan is already trying to claim accolades about bringing in a surplus before he has even given it - talk about premature *************
Mind you - it is a great achievement for a Labor Govt, especially this incompetent one

Getting a surplus is actually pretty easy. Just increase taxes and cut things until you've got more coming in than going out. If they've done it without creating problems simply to be able to say "we got a surplus" then let's pat them on the back.

Health:

State public dental waiting lists of 400,000 to be attacked via a funds injection of $350 million. An extra $150 million to get more dentists in the system, especially in rural areas.
Natural therapy to suffer a blow with “naturopathy, aromatherapy, ear candling, crystal therapy, flower essences, homeopathy, iridology, kinesiology, reiki and rolfing” possibly ruled ineligible for the health insurance rebate if they can’t be proven by Science to actually work.
Bowel cancer screening program to extend to people turning sixty from next year at a cost of $49.7 million.
Possible clawback of cost blowouts in the Howard government’s Medicare safety net, which currently reimburses patients with 80% of their medical costs above annual thresholds of about $600 for pensioners and low-income patients and $1200 for others.
Aged care will get an extra $577 million over five years as part of a broader $3.7 billion package.

Education:

Parents who previously failed to collect education receipts to claim their school kids’ expenses given a cash lifeline of $410 a year for each primary school child and $820 for high school students.

Welfare:

People swanning around overseas for over six weeks will lose government welfare payments as opposed to the current 13 weeks.
Single mums without work once their youngest child turns eight and who started getting money prior to 2006 will have their benefit reduced to the pitiful Newstart amount. Meant to force them back into work but in a flagging economy who can tell.

Defence:

Defence budget wisely smashed by $5 billion, including $1.8 billion from delays to the Joint Strike Fighter and another $3 billion from delays to future projects.

Taxation:

Cuts to tax breaks for 128,000 high income earners (over $300,000 pa) by doubling the discounted tax rate from 30 per cent from 15 per cent on voluntary contributions.
Green tax breaks promised to property developers in 2010 but might be scrapped, according to reports.
Tax free ciggies to be abolished to save $270 million as recommended by Ken Henry. Will prove a massive boon for vendors at Bali’s Ngurah Rai International Airport.
Six million Australians will get a tax cut of up to $300 beginning on May 9 and extending into next year. The tax-free threshold will increase on July 1 from $6000 a year to $18,200.
Living away from home Tax breaks claimed mostly by footloose executives to be pegged at one year and also curbed to save $1 billion.

Clean energy future:

Carbon tax on under 500 big polluters starts on July 1 at fixed rate of $23 per tonne. Will actually cost the budget money when handouts are factored in until an ETS gets properly cracking in a few years time (assuming the carbon price doesn’t collapse).
The Greens’ Clean Energy Finance Corp will spend $10 billion over five years on clean energy technology.
$100 supplements to family payments paid into bank accounts this month to offset the carbon tax. Also, increases in some pension payments and family allowances.

MRRT:

The weak-kneed 30% Minerals Resource Rent Tax will kick in on July 1 on profits above $75 million and is forecast to raise $3.7 billion in 2012-13, $3.8 billion in 2013-14, and $3.1 billion in 2014-15 paid mostly by BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata.
Small business looks set get a 1% tax cut from 30% to 29% as part of MRRT laws but Swan has been sketchy on committing to it.

Employment incentives:

Employers given $10 million in $1000 lots over four years to hire experienced older Australians who would otherwise be jostling for the age pension.
Skills package worth $9 billion as agreed with the States at COAG.

Small business measures:

A scheme to let small business “carry back” $1million in losses against previous paid tax at a cost of $700 million over three years.

Closing the gap:

Indigenous “Stronger Futures” package of $2.6 billion over 10 years to close the gap on Australia’s yawning inequalities on community services, health and education.

Public sector:

About $465 million slashed from the public sector via an annual rise in the efficiency dividend from 1.25 per cent to 1.5 per cent into 2014. Around 3,000 job losses mooted.

Foreign aid:

Mandated rise in foreign aid from 0.35 to 0.5 per cent of GNI by 2015-16 delayed to save $8 billion, despite protests from the aid lobby.

Flood levy:

Flood victims (about 45,000) won’t have to pay the flood levy to assist themselves before June 30.

Child care:

Child Care rebate of 50% might still be means tested, despite strong hints it would be maintained.

I noticed in the paper today they're talking about restricting claim for medical expenses above $2,000.

Would they be likely to do that for the 2011/12 financial year or would it be more likely to be for 2012/13?

here here!!

love it when both sides bring their views to the budget, they get up and clap and hug and shake hands like they have won a grandfinal or something while the opposite side sits their staring at the walls and shaking heads

Surplus - just a political ploy

hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.

Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy

hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.

The plebs call for it!!!

Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy

hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.

They certainly did when the Howard government were in.

Gozu wrote:

Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy

hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.

They certainly did when the Howard government were in.

The surpluses the Howard government delivered were a massive reason why we're in such good shape now. Paid off a massive government debt and built up reserves that went to paying for the future fund. Now, whether Howard et al were responsible for it or just happened to be in power at a good time is a different matter but anyone who thinks those surpluses weren't great for our country has no understanding of economics.

Grahaml wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:Bit early mate

But I see Swan is already trying to claim accolades about bringing in a surplus before he has even given it - talk about premature *************
Mind you - it is a great achievement for a Labor Govt, especially this incompetent one

Getting a surplus is actually pretty easy. Just increase taxes and cut things until you've got more coming in than going out. If they've done it without creating problems simply to be able to say "we got a surplus" then let's pat them on the back.

$33b in cuts. Now it's just a question of whether the cuts are worth it.

Bully wrote:here here!!

love it when both sides bring their views to the budget, they get up and clap and hug and shake hands like they have won a grandfinal or something while the opposite side sits their staring at the walls and shaking heads

I do find that part sad. First the treasurer then the opposition leader in his reply. It's like they think we're fools (just like that horrible contrived "conversation" between Swan and Gillard they leaked). Luckily for them most of us are.

Grahaml wrote:

Gozu wrote:

Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy

hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.

They certainly did when the Howard government were in.

The surpluses the Howard government delivered were a massive reason why we're in such good shape now. Paid off a massive government debt and built up reserves that went to paying for the future fund. Now, whether Howard et al were responsible for it or just happened to be in power at a good time is a different matter but anyone who thinks those surpluses weren't great for our country has no understanding of economics.

Um, no. Surpluses have nothing to do with being 'in such good shape now'. It's called a mining boom. If you or I were Treasurer then we could've run up surpluses too (Treasury does all the work). What was the last Howard govt surplus $20 Billion? What did we borrow for the stimulus packages to keep us afloat something like $240 Billion? We've got China and a few other countries to thank for our financial standing.

Gozu wrote:

Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy

hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.

They certainly did when the Howard government were in.

But they were real surpluses not created by increasing debt this FY to fund a modest "surplus" next FY. A very dishonest budget. We have a confidence trickster as treasurer

Gozu wrote:

Grahaml wrote:

Gozu wrote:

Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy

hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.

They certainly did when the Howard government were in.

The surpluses the Howard government delivered were a massive reason why we're in such good shape now. Paid off a massive government debt and built up reserves that went to paying for the future fund. Now, whether Howard et al were responsible for it or just happened to be in power at a good time is a different matter but anyone who thinks those surpluses weren't great for our country has no understanding of economics.

Um, no. Surpluses have nothing to do with being 'in such good shape now'. It's called a mining boom. If you or I were Treasurer then we could've run up surpluses too (Treasury does all the work). What was the last Howard govt surplus $20 Billion? What did we borrow for the stimulus packages to keep us afloat something like $240 Billion? We've got China and a few other countries to thank for our financial standing.

Are you trying to prove yourself wrong? Nobody is claiming Howard was responsible for the surpluses and nobody is in denial about what the mining sector contributed. Yes, the last surplus was around $20b. In fact I think over the Howard government's life they delivered surpluses around $120b. Without that we slip into recession and aren't able to borrow as we did. Your grasp of the situation is frighteningly poor and really just a symptom of being a chronic synic.

Found Andrew Bolt's summary in today's Tiser pretty much summed up my thoughts.

Not sure if that diminishes any credibility I may have had previously or not.

Ack.

OnSong wrote:Found Andrew Bolt's summary in today's Tiser pretty much summed up my thoughts.

Not sure if that diminishes any credibility I may have had previously or not.

Ack.

You'll get howled down in this forum for agreeing with Andrew Bolt! If you want credibility you'll have to quote from GetUp or Fairfax and agree with their views.

Mad Mat wrote:

OnSong wrote:Found Andrew Bolt's summary in today's Tiser pretty much summed up my thoughts.

Not sure if that diminishes any credibility I may have had previously or not.

Ack.

You'll get howled down in this forum for agreeing with Andrew Bolt! If you want credibility you'll have to quote from GetUp or Fairfax and agree with their views.

Ah well. Seems like I'm f#@%ed then.

Grahaml wrote:Are you trying to prove yourself wrong? Nobody is claiming Howard was responsible for the surpluses and nobody is in denial about what the mining sector contributed. Yes, the last surplus was around $20b. In fact I think over the Howard government's life they delivered surpluses around $120b. Without that we slip into recession and aren't able to borrow as we did. Your grasp of the situation is frighteningly poor and really just a symptom of being a chronic synic.

Mate this is what you said: "The surpluses the Howard government delivered were a massive reason why we're in such good shape now." Complete and utter rubbish and you know it. Don't get upset when you get pulled up for making such an absurd statement.

OnSong wrote:

Mad Mat wrote:

OnSong wrote:Found Andrew Bolt's summary in today's Tiser pretty much summed up my thoughts.

Not sure if that diminishes any credibility I may have had previously or not.

Ack.

You'll get howled down in this forum for agreeing with Andrew Bolt! If you want credibility you'll have to quote from GetUp or Fairfax and agree with their views.

Ah well. Seems like I'm f#@%ed then.

Massive lol at Blot pretending to care about foreign aid. As if that racist **** hole gives a ****?!

Q. wrote:Massive lol at Blot pretending to care about foreign aid. As if that racist **** hole gives a ****?!

As we can see here there a number of people who get sucked in by his rubbish, global cooling, racist attacks on Aboriginal academics, initially trying to say right-wing Christian terrorist Anders Breivik must've been a muslim terrorist etc