It’s no secret that I thought the conscientious objectors exemption for the Family Tax Benefit A vaccination requirement was total bullshit and it infuriated me to no end that what sounded like a great policy ended up being trivialized. The fact of the matter is that whilst you might think that vaccination is a personal decision it is anything but as choosing not to vaccinate puts other people at risk, usually those who are least able to fight off the dangers that you or your children will now present to them. Still the moronic ideal that vaccines somehow cause more harm than they prevent prevailed with a choice group of people, seeing the number of unvaccinated children double in the past decade.
The government was obviously aware of the fact that their legislation was being routinely circumvented by a disturbingly large number of people and just yesterday introduced new legislation dubbed “No Jab, No Pay“. Whilst the crux of the legislation remains the same, people who refuse to vaccinate their children will lose several tax benefits and rebates until they get current, however this new bill removes the get out of jail free card that the conscientious objector exemption provided. Now the only way to get around losing your tax benefits is if you can’t get vaccinated for medical reasons (something that’s extremely rare and would be covered off by herd immunity normally) or if you have a religious reason for doing so.
Thankfully the latter provision has said to be extremely narrow which will most likely derail any attempts the anti-vaxxers have of trying to circumvent it with something as ludicrous as the Church of Conscious Living, a religious group set up specifically for that purpose. Whilst that might not stop anti-vaxxers from joining up some of the more esoteric, but established, religions that have such exemptions I’m sure many of them will be thinking long and hard before they associate themselves with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In any case it will likely force the hands of many to get their children vaccinated so they can receive those benefits from the government, a win-win for all involved if you ask me.
The fact that the government has had to step in like this shows just how serious of an issue the anti-vaxxer movement is becoming. The fact that the number of unvaccinated children has risen so sharply in recent times is cause for alarm on its own however the flow on effects of that are far, far worse. We’re seeing a resurgence in diseases that were essentially considered eradicated in Australia, some of which can have dire consequences for those who don’t have the immunity granted to them through the use of vaccinations. The anti-vax movement will argue that the vaccines do more harm than good or don’t prevent diseases that they say they do however the science simply does not line up with any of the claims they make and yet they continue to perpetuate the myths.
There’s really no argument to be had here, vaccinations work, are incredibly safe and for those precious few who are unable to get vaccinated the benefits of herd immunity will ensure that they will not suffer from the diseases they cannot protect themselves against. The more people that refuse to vaccinate the worse off we will be as a nation as we’ll be once again battling diseases that we would otherwise not have to. The cold hard fact is that vaccines are several orders of magnitude better than the diseases they prevent and to argue otherwise is disregard decades of science, numerous public health studies and your own morality that goes against harming other humans.
If you’re willing to look past all that then you can see why I’m not sympathetic to you losing a few dollars from the government.
Copyright law in Australia isn’t as cut and dry as many believe it to be. Whilst some of our laws are in line with what the general public thinks they are (I.E. United States based) there’s a lot of things that are more draconian, like the lack of safe harbor provisions, and others that are a lot more lax like the lack of any formal infringement notification systems. This has often been cited as one of the main reasons why piracy is so rampant in Australia although that’s really only a minor part of the equation. Still this hasn’t stopped rights holders from lobbying members of our parliament into getting the laws changed and a recently leaked discussion paper, from the offices of Senator Brandis and Minister Turnbull, showcases a rather disturbing future for Australian copyright.
The discussion paper reads as a wish list of measures that rights holders would like to see implemented that would be used to curb copyright infringement behaviour within Australia, taking inspiration from similar schemes overseas. The proposed measures will be familiar to anyone who’s been involved in the copyright debate ranging from requiring ISPs to take “reasonable action” against infringing users (something our High Court has ruled against in the past), blocking websites that facilitate infringement and the measures required to support those processes. There are some potential positive questions for discussion in there, like the expansion of safe harbor provisions, but the rest of them will only cause more headaches than they will solve.
The first discussion point around ISP’s taking “reasonable steps” towards discouraging users from engaging in copyright infringement is a blatant attempt to skirt around the high court’s previous ruling that there are no such steps that an ISP can take. Essentially it comes down to a question of liability as increasing the exposure that the ISPs have make them a better target for litigation than the thousands of individuals beneath them do. The worst thing about this is that it will most certainly lead to increased costs for consumers with no benefits for anyone but the rights holders themselves. Honestly this smacks of the “mandatory voluntary” system that Conroy proposed, and then swiftly abandoned, all those years ago. If it didn’t work then I fail to see how it could work now.
The second point revolves around blocking some sites outright which they’re proposing to do at the ISP level. Now the paper doesn’t go into details about how the site would be blocked, just that injunctions could be granted, however we know that whatever method they use will end up being ineffectual. DNS blacklisting, IP blocks and all other methods that other countries have used in the past simply do not work in an environment with users with a modicum of technical experience. Heck there are dozens of browser extensions which help with this and there’s already a healthy number of Australians completely circumventing any ISP level blocking through the use of VPNs. So realistically the discussion point about what matters should be considered in granting an injunction are moot as it won’t stop the site from being available.
The last 3 points dig into what the impacts will be (both in terms of reducing infringement and the cost to business) as well as asking if there are any alternative measures that can be taken. Honestly I feel these are the points that should be front and center rather than the previous two I mentioned as this is the real crux of the copyright issue in Australia. In terms of the discussion paper though they feel like afterthoughts, each given a brief paragraph with a one liner question following them. It really looks like the other points are, essentially, already agreed to and these are just there to placate those who feel that they need to have their voice heard.
What this discussion paper completely misses is the real issue here: the lack of content systems that are on the same level available overseas. The Australian tax is no longer just catch cry, it’s a fact, and the residents of this country have voted with their wallets. Indeed the high use of Netflix within Australia shows that we’re ready, willing and able to pay for the services should rights holders be willing to provide them but instead this paper wants to focus on the stick rather than the carrot.
If Brandis and Turnbull are serious about copyright reform in Australia they should be looking into what they can do to encourage those services to come Australia rather than attempt to dissuade people from pirating their content. History has shown that the latter can never be prevented, no matter what legislation you put in or DRM you attempt to ram down the customer’s throats. The latter has a tried and true history of being successful and I have no doubts that rights holders would see similar success in Australia should they choose to bring their services here. For now though it seems like they’re still stuck in the past, trying to protect business models that are failing in the new Internet powered economy. They’ll have to come around eventually, it’s just a question of whether they do it before someone else does.
Oh wait they already are. Time to wake the fuck up.
My generation has been very vocal about the struggle they have with the high cost of property in Australia. The argument is not without merit with our 2 largest cities often ranking in the top 10 most expensive places in the world to live. Indeed in the past I’ve said that Australian property is out of reach for an average person on a single income although I did conclude that this wasn’t representative of how most Australians buy their homes. Still one target that almost always comes up in discussions around housing affordability is that negative gearing isn’t doing anything to help the situation and its abolishment would lead to cheaper housing everywhere. Whilst I’m sure my vested interest in this topic (I have a negatively geared property, soon to be 2) will likely have most tuning out before this paragraph is over I’d urge you to read on as getting rid of negative gearing, or modifying it in a way you think appropriate, won’t bring prices down like you think they would.
Taken by themselves the numbers around negative gearing do appear to be quite damning. Every year the government doles out about $4 billion worth of tax cuts to people who own negatively geared property, amounting to about 1% of total tax revenue. At the same time data would seem to indicate that investors almost exclusively target established properties something which is at odds with the arguments that investors fund new property development. All this would seem to add up to a situation where investors are locking up existing property stocks which forces potential buyers out of the market. Whilst I’ll admit that negative gearing is a factor in all this it’s by no means the major contributor and making changes to it will likely not have the effects that many desire.
One proposed changes is to limit the number of properties that can be negatively geared to 1, putting a cap on the number of properties investors can draw benefits from. It sounds good in theory as it would put the kibosh on property barons snapping up large swaths of property however the fact is that the vast majority of property investors in Australia, to the tune of 72.8%, own only a single investment property. They in turn account for just over half the total number of investment properties in Australia. So whilst limiting negative gearing to a single property sounds like a good idea it would only affect half of the investment properties in Australia leaving the rest in the same situation as before.
Limiting negative gearing to new construction is an idea I’m on board with as it will more directly address the issue of housing supply rather than pushing investors away from property as an investment class. The one caveat I’d have to put on top of that would be the curtailing of the land agencies from charging exorbitant amounts for new land releases as that could easily erase any gains made from quarantining negative gearing in this fashion. Indeed if you look at just the land prices here in the nationals capital a small, 400m2 block will usually go for $400,000 meaning that even a modest house built there will cost upwards of $550,000. If you want to attract investors to building new properties then this is most certainly an issue that needs to be addressed prior to quarantining negative gearing.
However all of these ideas are flawed when you consider that there’s a much bigger tax break at work here that’s inflating property prices. As I’ve stated many times in the past Australian housing investors are something of a minority, accounting for around 20% of the housing market. Therefore it’s hard to believe that negative gearing is solely responsible for Australia’s house prices as the majority of the market is because of owner occupiers. What I didn’t mention in that previous post is the tax breaks that owner-occupiers receive in the form of exemptions from capital gains tax. Essentially when you sell your primary place of residence you don’t pay any tax on any gains that property may have made while you owned it which puts a strong upward pressure on prices (people want to maximise gains), enabling them to trade up to bigger and better houses.
That sounds fine in principle but it costs taxpayers a staggering $36 billion a year, 9 times that of negative gearing. You wouldn’t even have to abolish this to see savings far in excess of what getting rid of negative gearing would achieve. Instituting a 50% reduction in the capital gains tax payable (like is done currently with shares) for the sale of your primary place of residence would generate $18 billion a year and put a heavy downward pressure on property prices. Hell you could even apply the new construction only exception to this as well, giving people who build new houses something like 5 years worth of capital gains tax free whilst ensuring everyone else paid up. Of course this solution is a little less palatable since it targets everyone and no just those dirty investors but it would be far more effective.
Many will argue that abolishing negative gearing is a good first step towards solving the problem but in all honesty I don’t feel it will have the impact that it’s advocates think it will. Australian investors, whilst being a factor in housing prices, aren’t the major contributor with that responsibility falling to the Australian dream of owning ever bigger and better homes. Fixing the supply issue is a multi-faceted affair and if you want to attract investor dollars to it the solution has to be much more nuanced than simply removing one piece of legislation. You might not like it, hell I don’t like limiting things to new construction but I’ll agree it would work, but we have to face the fact that targeting Australian property investors likely won’t get us very far.
If there’s one thing that Australia has going for it at the moment it’s the duo of a well regulated banking industry coupled with a strong economy that has seen us weather some of the worst financial crisis we’ve seen in decades. The Global Financial Crisis came and went without leaving much of a lasting impact and for the most part we’ve been immune to the Eurozone Crisis. For an industry that relies on trust you really couldn’t find a better environment than Australia at the moment as compared to nearly every other place on earth the trust in our banking system is extremely high.
If I was to choose a place that is the exact opposite my country of choice would of course be Cyprus. For the uninitiated Cyprus is a small island nation of about 1 million people or so and is renown for being something of a tax haven. This is due to its extremely favourable tax rates on savings accounts there and led to the banks storing more wealth than the entire nation’s GDP. When everything’s going well this isn’t much of a problem as the steady flow of capital helps keep both the nation and the banks afloat. However when things turn bad, like they have done during the Eurozone Crisis, what you have is an island nation that’s left in a rather difficult situation as it lacks the tools to deal with such colossal entities failing.
The issues stem from the Greek financial crisis as the Cyprian banks had amassed some €22 billion worth of Greek private sector debt. As a result of the writing down of much of this debt in order to save Greece (and thus the Euro itself) the Cyprian banks were hit hard by this and in turn had their credit rating downgraded. This lead to a downward spiral of bad debt piling up, banks defaulting on loan payments and the Cyprian government, with a GDP below that of the debt their banks had amassed, being completely unable to deal with it. So like any other EU member they approached European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank for a bailout. They were able to secure one however before they could get it they needed to raise some €7 billion and the method by which they did this was, to put it bluntly, incredibly retarded.
The initial proposal, according to IVA, was to raise these funds was a one off tax on all savings deposits with accounts under €100,000 losing 6.7% and above that losing 9.9%. They began musing this particular deal over the weekend in order to be able to enact the legislation before everyone had a chance to get their money out but as soon as news began to spread the beginnings of a bank run started taking shape. ATMs were quickly emptied of their cash and long lines formed as people tried to get as much of their cash out of Cyprian banks before they were slugged with the tax. The initial proposal didn’t get through however and the Cyprian government had to order the banks not to open and they’ve been closed ever since.
News reaches us today that the Cyprian government has managed to reach a resolution with the one off tax now being restricted to accounts over €100,000. What the particular rate will be though remains a mystery but you can guarantee it will have to be higher than the initial proposal to make up for the revenue lost on accounts below that threshold. The deal will also see one of the bigger banks broken down into a toxic asset dump and a small, feasible business but there have been calls for the same thing to happen to its largest bank. No matter what they end up doing however the damage has been done to their banking industry and I’m not sure it’ll ever be able to recover.
You see banking relies on a certain amount of trust, especially when it comes to things like savings accounts. You trust your bank won’t lose your money and, in the case of the government, you trust that they won’t come after it unless you’re directly responsible for something. The Cyprian people, and their foreign depositors, are essentially being punished for the mistakes of the banks and there’s no amount of guarantees that they can make that something like this won’t happen again. Thus the only smart thing for anyone to do is to get their money out of there as soon as humanly possible lest the same thing repeat itself in the future.
It’s not like this couldn’t happen elsewhere, indeed New Zealand is considering a similar move, but the reputation Cyprus had as a great place to store capital is now in tatters. Future depositors will think twice before sending money there again because it’s clear that the tiny nation can’t deal with the mistakes of its banks due to the huge influence they have their economy. After the tax goes down I doubt any of the large creditors will be keeping their money in there for long and its likely a bank run will still occur once the banks reopen their doors. With that the finance industry in Cyprus will be dealt a crippling blow, one which it will be unlikely to recover from.
It might be for the good of the country in the long term however since no one will store capital there any more it’s unlikely they’ll get into a situation like this again. I’m not entirely sure that’s a good thing though as it takes an axe to what was once a very profitable industry for the Cyprian people. Realistically though the blame for all of this lies directly with their government, one that should have taken better precautions to avoid a situation like this in the first place.
The debt advisors are those people whose contacts you must o have in your phone.
For a while I was lulled into thinking that Australia was becoming some kind of rational place thanks to all the progress we had been making. After years of campaigning, blogging and whining about it to friends we’re less than 6 months away from having a R18+ rating for games in Australia. The government also seemed to become more aware of people acting irrationally and decided to do something about it, removing the family tax benefit for parents who refused to vaccinate their kids. Sure we still had a long way to go but the beginnings of a rational, logical government seemed to be sprouting up everywhere and for a time I was happy.
All it took was one news article to bring that all down in one sweeping blow. I’ll let the exerpt speak for itself:
While parents have been warned they will lose their payment and the childcare benefit if they do not fully immunise their children, they are also being told exemptions will be given to objectors.
All they have to do to still receive the money is fill out a form supplied by the Federal Government.
It reads: “To meet the immunisation requirements, children will need to be fully immunised, be on a recognised immunisation catch-up schedule, or have an approved exemption.”
You can imagine how furious this made me.
So last November when I blogged about the Australian government taking away tax benefits for people who refused to vaccinate their children I thought it was a no holds barred approach: if you refuse to vaccinate you lose the money, simple. Turns out that’s not entirely the case as whilst if you do refuse to vaccinate you will lose the benefit that will only happen should you fail to fill out he conscientious objection form available from DHS. If you fill out that form then you’re right as rain and you’ll get the full tax benefits as if you had fully immunized your child even though you haven’t.
To me that seems more like a punishment for the ignorant and unaware, not people who don’t want to vaccinate their children.
Indeed it makes the whole policy null and void as the anti-vaxers are a vocal movement, with posts like these reaching a wide audience. Realistically if the government was serious about this legislation there wouldn’t be any exemptions at all and the anti-vaxers would have to endure both the physical and fiscal consequences of their actions. Instead now all we have is anti-vaxers wasting the time of doctors in order to get them to sign a form so they can then reclaim the money that they shouldn’t be entitled to and that makes me incredibly furious.
You see whilst the Australian Vaccination Network might like to think that there’s two sides to the vaccination debate they are in fact clearly wrong. The old pretence of vaccinations causing autism is patently false and anyone pointing to data saying that there have been more cases of autism since their introduction forgets the fact that diagnosing austim spectrum disorders has been an area of scientific investigation ever since it was introduced. Any increase in the condition’s prevalence is far more likely due to the umbrella of ASDs spreading than vaccinations or some other mysterious environmental factor.
Worse still are the proponents who think vaccinations aren’t the best way to develop a healthy immune system and that it can be had through a healthy diet or some other rubbish. Vaccines work because they give your immune system the tools with which to destroy the disease before it can take hold and the only other way to get a similar level of immunity is to catch the disease. For some vaccinated diseases this might not be too bad (chicken pox has only recently had a vaccine developed as the symptoms are very mild for children, however they can be deadly for adults) but for things like small pox, polio and other nasty diseases vaccination is the only safe way to get immunity. There are other diseases for which no immunity develops after you’ve caught it (pertussis or whooping cough) which means you could very well catch the same disease repeated times without strengthening the immune system at all.
I will wholeheartedly defend the parent’s rights to do as they will with their own bodies but the second they start to make decisions about their child’s (and indirectly all other children that interact with them) health then I believe the government has every right to step in and intervene. The fact of the matter is that refusal to vaccinate your child isn’t a decision that affects your child it puts every other child near them at risk. Herd immunity only goes so far and we’ve seen far too many tragic incidents where parents of children who can’t be vaccinated yet (because they’re too young) die because another child would could have been vaccinated wasn’t and then transmitted a fatal infection to them. Not vaccinating your children is a completely selfish decision and I believe the government has every right to punish you for it.
How you can claim to have a concious and object to protecting your child with scientifically proven and tested methods is beyond my comprehension. There is no scientific argument that the anti-vaxer movement can bring forward that supports their view, it’s all based on the emotion of those who believe vaccines are responsible for something that they’re not. I can understand their frustration, I used to work with special needs children and it can be truly heart wrenching at times, and the need to look for a source of blame is incredibly strong. However I can’t condone them blaming vaccines for anything but making their child cry when they get the injection as there’s no evidence to support it and abstaining from them puts their child and all other children around them in serious danger.
Seriously Australia, don’t support this kind of bullshit. It’s our kids who will pay the price.
I don’t have kids and probably won’t for another few years but that doesn’t mean I can’t understand some of the things that parents go through. I used to work in child care back in the day and by far the biggest concern any of the parents had was their child’s health. As a care giver every child’s health was my concern as disease has a tendency to spread rapidly in those situations and one sick kid can mean dozens if not taken care of correctly. This, amongst numerous other reasons, is why I fail to understand why some parents refuse to vaccinate their children as otherwise you’re putting them (and other children) at a great risk.
Now I know the reasons why most parents don’t vaccinate their children. Mostly it has to do with their concern that vaccines, in particular the triple shot MMR, will cause their child to develop an Autism Spectrum Disorder. The controversy surrounding this is well known but it is suffice to say that all the evidence and scientific research shows that vaccines can not and do not lead to ASDs. Any correlation that can be drawn between the two is simply that and can not be used as a basis for causation. The fact of the matter is that so far the only proven cause for autism is genetics and any environmental factors are either still under investigation or have been thoroughly disproved. To say otherwise at this point is unscientific conjecture and it would be reckless to base your child’s health decisions on such things.
The usual retort people have for the decision not to vaccinate is that it’s their decision and they should have the choice to make it. At this point the crazed libertarian in me starts shrieking out in support of them and I’d agree with him, right up until I get to the point of where their decisions start to impact others. Whilst the decision not to vaccinate your child is not only a bad decision for them it’s also a bad thing for society at large. Herd immunity requires a certain number of people to be immune to a disease before the non-immune can benefit from their protection. The anti-vaccination movement has had a big enough impact that for certain diseases we’re actually below that critical threshold and those who can’t be made immune, like those who are too young, end up paying the price.
Thankfully I live in Australia a place where the government has finally decided to hit people who refuse to vaccinate their children where it hurts, in their wallet:
Parents who do not have their children fully immunised will be stripped of family tax benefits under a scheme announced by the Federal Government.
The Government says 11 per cent of five-year-olds are not immunised and has announced a shake-up of the system which will take effect from July 1 next year.
Under the changes, families who refuse vaccinations face losing up to $2,100 per child in benefits.
That number of unvaccinated children is rather scary as the herd immunity level for pertussis (whooping cough) and measles is above that vaccination rate. Now this change won’t convince everyone, there are some that to refuse to vaccinate on principle, but hopefully it will drive the numbers up high enough that it won’t matter any more. As it stands now we’re in danger of seeing a resurgence of these diseases that, to put it simply, we shouldn’t have to.
This isn’t one of those ethical grey areas where you can justify your decision based on whatever you believe in, the fact is that if you’re child isn’t vaccinated they are not only at risk themselves but they also put others at risk. The only time I’d support someone not vaccinating their children is if they kept them away from all other children which I think everyone will agree would be far more damaging to them than a shot in the arm. So if the Australian government isn’t going to entertain the anti-vaccination movement neither should you and if you still feel the need to go against the grain because of some whacky view you saw on the Internet then I’m glad you’re getting slugged for it. Maybe then you’ll think twice about the callous decision you’re making.
In many modern democratic countries the choice of leadership often comes down to two parties who hold the majority of power. This is then augmented by having many other less powerful parties who, whilst they don’t hold any significant power by themselves, help to ensure that other less mainstream ideals are still represented in the decision making process of the country. However they still have to choose a preferred side to default to which returns the small amount of power they wield back to one of the two major players.
“Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others.” – Winston Churchill
For the most part this works well. Having two major parties constantly at each other does lend to most policies undergoing a considerable amount of scrutiny and you can be assured that if there’s anything truly damaging in a piece of legislation that the opposition will ridicule the government for it. However the act of voting someone in doesn’t necessarily mean that you agree with all of their policies and directions, as no candidate can accurately represent the individuals desires for the leadership of the country. This is probably my one of my beefs with the two party system, whilst I can vote people in based on a political ideal I can’t vote out legislation that I might oppose. So whilst I do have representation in the form of a candidate that I had a hand in electing once they’re in office I am at their mercy when it comes to creating and voting on legislation.
This came up last night when I was discussing with my parents why I felt giving to charities was ineffective. Whilst the act of giving to charity is an altruistic ideal I feel disconnected from my act of giving and the impact that act will have on someone less fortunate then me. I proposed a system whereby they could track my donation using a unique ID and show me where the money ended up. So if I gave $50 I would love to see where that actually wound up, even if it was just 50 loaves of bread. I then thought that such a system could revolutionise the way the democracy works in Australia.
Let me lay out the specification for such a system for you and how it would be used in Australia. Currently everyone who pays taxes has a Tax File Number (TFN). Using this ID your tax dollars could be flagged and then put into pools of cash broken up into something like postcode or arbitrary number. When the government wants to fund something it draws from one or more of these pools and associates the funds with a project. Then using a web interface any Australian with a tax file number could log in and see where their tax dollars were being spent. You could actually see your tax dollars at work building hospitals or new schools.
A simple augmentation to this system would then be to allow all users to assign preferences for their tax dollars. This then forms the basis of micro-voting with your tax dollars. So say you support increased spending on education and a reduction in defense. You log into this website and select your preference for education as 1 and defense as 10. With enough participation in the system you in essence give the power back to the people and could mandate that the government allocate funding along the public’s lines (within reason of course).
I identify myself as a libertarian without most of the crazy (I don’t think markets are the answer to everything) and as such I see this as a way of giving people the choice to not only vote in the party that they align with but also allow them to have a say in the operations of the government once they’re in power. I’m also partial to the idea of taking some power away from lobbyists who have a considerable amount of power in democracies like the USA.
Of course this idea has its issues, and the majority of it would come down to voter participation. Whilst voting is mandatory in Australia the USA attracts about 50% to 60% of eligible voters to the polling booths. Given the additional option of this system I’m sure less than 100% of those people would want to participate which reduces the value such a system would have as resource for the government. Still even as an opt-in part of voting I still believe that it could prove useful and I believe initial implementations could be used by the government to form policies that the public at large supports, rather than employing political devices such as soft power to make the public believe that they’re getting what they want.
I guess the next question is, would this improve the democratic process?
It’s that time of the year again and with less than a week until the official announcement the budget buzz has begun. Let’s take a look at what has managed to slip out from the cracks in parliament and see what that means for Australia at large:
These are interesting points, mostly for the fact that many of them mirror what the United States did with their budget. Most notable are the almost direct copies of an increase in tax for the wealthy as well as a large increase in defence spending. I can’t help but think that this is a little bit of me-too-ism from the Rudd government as the decision has been well received by the working class and not so much from the corporations. Saying all this though Rudd and Swan are making the best of a bad situation and will continue to look to score political brownie points throughout the economic crisis.
The other issue here is that Swan has stood his ground firmly when it comes to delivering the tax cuts they promised a while ago. I can admire their dedication to delivering on an election promise but when they’ve stated that the budget deficit will last for such a long time it seems like a terrible move economically which won’t push their ratings that much higher in the polls. Again this mirrors the United States position of cutting taxes to increase revenue but when you’re in such a large hole of debt cutting taxes only serves to draw out the time the country stays in debt. It may soften the blow, but you’ll suffer for much longer because of it.
Personally the bits of the budget that I’ve seen so far seem to lack a cohesive strategy that I’d expect from the people running the country. Many of the ideas seem to reek of robbing Peter to pay Paul, with revenue generation coming from all the wrong places (people’s superannuation is really the wrong place) and then spending it by giving it back to the people they took it from. A strange bit of circular logic there.
I’ll still take all of this with a grain of salt as the strategy the government is planning to take will become all the more clear next week when the full budget is announced. It’s easy to get riled up over small bits of information like this and what we have is really only a small part of a larger picture. Still the parts I’m seeing right now don’t give me the best feeling about the rest of the picture.