Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
User avatar
deepthought
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:05 pm

Re: Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Post by deepthought » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:39 pm

Deleted
Last edited by deepthought on Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rainbow Moonlight
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:23 pm

Re: Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Post by Rainbow Moonlight » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:46 pm

Hi DT. i think that what JM said before was that they appeared to be in surplus because Costello counted one off public assett sales as income. Don't know if that is true but I would have thought it was pretty basic accounting not to do that.

The other thing he said was that they counted money received only because of the mining boom as income and shouldn't have. Don't know that I agree re the mining boom income though- might be commonsense not to set up an unsustainable system based on a boom but not sure it is wrong to share the wealth or to count it as income.

How much has HECS contributed to federal revenue? Whatever it is it is a continually increasing base.

Jovial Monk

Re: Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Post by Jovial Monk » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:50 pm

you are quite right, RM.

Mining by its very nature is ephemeral. Remember the analogy with a few weeks lucky run with the lottery tickets?

Rainbow Moonlight
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:23 pm

Re: Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Post by Rainbow Moonlight » Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:59 pm

All business has peaks and troughs, and increased revenues due to the mining boom were legitimately, in my view, counted as income. (Unlike counting proceedings from selling off public assetts)

Any government when in power would have had a choice as to what to do with that income and various choices could have been made. I do not think that all Howard adn Costello's choices were bad ones.

Jovial Monk

Re: Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Post by Jovial Monk » Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:04 pm

I suppose they must have done something, when they weren't thinking, sometime :)

Consider, though, $400Bn, proceeds of mining boom, put into a big fund. this fund could pay for the Ruddnet, pay for a 40Km squared solar thermal power station that would replace all the dirty coal burning power stations now operating? Instead that $400Bn went in pork and tax cuts, tax cuts now no longer sustainable.

LeftofCentre

Re: Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Post by LeftofCentre » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:22 am

I do not think that all Howard and Costello's choices were bad ones
You're right RM, they were not all bad - Howard chose to cut his own throat and that of his party with a workplace regime that Australians were never going to accept and Dollar $weetie chose to throw in the towel :)

Jovial Monk

Re: Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Post by Jovial Monk » Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:16 am

Not that Lefty is biased :)

LeftofCentre

Re: Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Post by LeftofCentre » Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:18 pm

Oh no, not at all :mrgreen:

User avatar
deepthought
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:05 pm

Re: Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Post by deepthought » Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:00 pm

Deleted
Last edited by deepthought on Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LeftofCentre

Re: Howard/Costello budgets were in structural deficit

Post by LeftofCentre » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:24 am

Deepy,

the first post of mine on this thread to which you responded contains the answer you are seeking.

I'm off camping for a few days - I'll leave you to work out the answer in my post :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests