sounds like one of my exam questions for macroeconomics......hmm haven't studied yet A budget surplus is a good sign for governments because they can use this surplus to pay off debts or save for future investments etc..
Well a surplus has to come from somewhere which means the government has overcharged someone for something. Unless they are in it for profits, in which case they are doing what they are meant to. They probably need to have a bit of contingency money in case of emergencies as long as it isn't mad money for spending on stuff we don't need.
Yes - imagine if you had a private company that ran up losses year after year and spent more than they were earning - they wouldn't (or shouldn't) stay in business for long. However if a surplus is reached by selling off (profitable) income-producing assets such as airports, seaports, and other infrastructure (which is what the Howard govt did during the 90s & early 20s due to Labour's economic mismanagement) then you could have a surplus but no assets at your disposal to bring in extra income, which if new debts are accumulated then the govt has a much harder time repaying. It would be like paying off a massive debt by selling your business, dividend-paying shares etc, then once you did that then maxing out the credit card - you now have a debt that has to be repaid, but you've just taken away your income streams that could've helped pay the debt.
Not if it's caused by defunding health and education and letting public infrastructure crumble. So to answer to your question is, just because liberal left a surplus, does not mean they are better than labour.
Public infrastructure is the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. It is the state Labour governments that have left public infrastructure to crumble, not the Liberal federal government of the last decade. Bob Carr bankrupting NSW being a case in point.
yep. Its just like a family. If you have money left over, your family finances are prudently run. You're not spending more than you can afford. Sure there are certain needs; thats why you need prioritize.
Most time than not, they're excuses. Spend trillions on health/education/infastructure, yet there never seem to be any end in requiring MORE
I work as a teacher in a religious school and a kid wrote as an answer to one of the questions in the exam which went "why did.....", his answer was "God knows best", I was laughing so much and the kid later asked me why he got it wrong and said his answer was correct lol so theres the answer to the original question
Depends Yes, if global economic condition is all in the crapper and govt manage to run surplus while keeping standard of living the same. Govt is amazing in this context. No, if global economic condition is all good, every single nation on earth is on surplus. This only highlights good time for everyone. If govt runs deficit during these times, they need to be hanged.
Deficits are not bad. Governments who have deficits because they are spending on activities which result in prosperity for the people are good. Governments that create deficits to fund their own lifestyles are bad. For example: K.Rudd has spent a million dollars of our taxes buzzing around the world in first class attempting to plant his bum on the UN seats (the real gravy train lifestyle), and away from those nasty unappreciative party people. Adding to the deficit like this is bad.
Very simplistic question but in principle a government that can run a surplus is much better than a defecit. In my life time I don't consider any Australian government to have returned a true surplus. If we had zero public debt and zero unfunded liabilities (that the future fund was attempting to cater for before Labor decided to get it's grubby hands on it) AND managed to run a surplus then I would say that a government is simply taxing too much and needs to cut taxes. If we ever manage to get to that position in the future we either have to start looking a big long term revenue creating or nationally beneficial projects or simply give the cash back to the people.
