So who do you believe here? The IMF warning, or the government telling us we are on a path to surplus?
But... but... Wall Street says we're on the right path!? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-path-joe-hockey/story-fn59nsif-1227305547003
Link was behind a paywall, but this one seems to be the same story: http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ian-news/wall-street-backs-budget-path-hockey It sounds like Hockey is saying Wall Street is backing the budget path? Or maybe it's because a ratings agency gave Australia a good score, like they did to banks before the GFC.
I can't decide between a Mack truck or a bus as the best way to go under. Everyone's busy rearranging deck chairs while the band plays on. As most economies are stuffed, I believe you need to take a gnostic view, ignore the chatter, go into your shell, and make your own contingency plans.
That's government debt. What about personal and business debt in Australia? Personal debt is already the highest in relation to GDP.
Even the government isn't optimistic about getting a surplus anytime soon. https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/26790439/hockey-puts-surplus-hopes-on-ice/
Seems Hockey and Abbott are each spinning it differently. While Hockey is out of the country, Abbott has come out and said this week: "Each year will bring us closer to a surplus a surplus that means that debt will actually start to reduce rather than simply grow at a slower pace"
Each year seems to be bringing Australia a bigger deficit. Then again you can hardly believe anything a politician says. http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ab...-a-political-train-wreck-20150319-1m2ti1.html
So it's gone from "we will deliver a surplus in our first year and every year after that" to 40 years. Might as well be saying never.
Meh, should governments have a surplus? In my way of thinking it means they've usurped too much of our property.
A government surplus means they've taken more than they need. In the presence of a surplus, Costello cut taxes. Quoting one recent article: "Simply but profoundly, he was giving you back your money which was not needed to fund government, keeping it out of the greedy hands of all the taxpayer-teat sucking interest groups, and his own cabinet colleagues, all too willing to spend it." http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...ficits-and-taxes/story-fni0d8gi-1227304007844 But then... "His successor, Wayne Swan, had the double misfortune of seeing the revenue evaporate because of the GFC, while embarking on a Treasury-advised Keynesian-style spending surge. Costello's surpluses and any prospect of tax cuts disappeared, pretty much for the foreseeable future." And the last few paragraphs:
On advice to contain a recession you mean? That would be the surplus that Howard didn't manage to spend buying votes. How dare Rudd buy votes!
yes indeed the etc was absolutely massive then Gillard added NDIS, Gonski and a few more etc's we are now on the path the socialists wanted when China slows, expect further gutting of the tax base at some point the Asian (mostly mainland Chinese) driven RE booms in the major cities will slow it could take substantial unemployment in our private sector to provide the coup de grace
