Highly commendable Stuart:
And you are right, we do need to have a conversation, and about where to from here, particularly once we traverse peak minerals!
And it can't be a we and them, that just divides the nation and creates pockets of post code poverty, and or, a shrinking well to do!
But rather an us!
The budget could have been balanced with a modest surplus, just by ending all middle class welfare!
i.e., ending tax breaks for the wealthiest, on their super dooper super! 30 billion!
Jettisoning negative gearing, 5 billion.
Winding back health insurance subsidies, 3 billion.
And means testing public health and education? 15 billion?
A combined total of 53 billions, or around 13 billions more than the current deficit!
That get us out of the current pickle, with little real pain!
After that, we really do need to have a conversation about how we go forward from here?
The first cab off the rank must be massive tax reform and simplification, and for mine that would be a complete jettisoning of current arrangements, which would be replaced by stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax.
We're told, we have a 1.6 trillion dollar economy?
Given that is so, an expenditure tax of 18% would raise some 380 billions, and given the streamlining available, via the simplicity, more than enough revenue, that grows with the economy.
And growing that economy quite massively, is as simple as, the cheapest real tax and rolling out cheaper than coal thorium power stations.
Many small units, that could be mas produced and trucked where needed, would be preferable than the great white elephant of a national power grid, and much more reliable. Continued.
Rhrosty

Anachronistic state parliaments, ought to be replaced by seriously downsized Administrations?
Winner takes all state governors, and a handpicked dozen or so civil servants/dept heads is plenty!
That seriously downsized ,opposition free State parliament, would only cost around half the current budget to run!
Meaning more money for coal face service provision.
And if their revenue stream were limited to tobacco, alcohol excise, business and vehicle registration fees, along profit streams from cash cow essential services and all capital gains.
They'd have more money than they needed, but particularly, if we replaced much of the entirely unnecessary bloated fat cat bureaucracy, with virtually unpaid, autonomous, regional voluntary boards!
Moreover, there'd be no really stupid privatization outcomes replacing timely updating, as that would only ever impact on a seriously streamlined budget!
Councils could be handed back the role of providing retail reticulation of power, gas and water, and keeping whatever profits that makes, in order to lower rates, without ever compromising service delivery; or, more timely land rezoning!
Given, we would have created a model, that relied on actual competition for Population numbers, customers/rate payers, rather than rationed urban land roll-outs etc.
Locating future power stations near or in industrial estates, would halve the cost of already cheaper than coal industrial power!
We just need pollies who focus on serving us and our needs as a nation, rather than them and or, winning political advantage, power, or after politics, career options, as say lobbyists or consultants!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty,

You obviously haven't got the message, so I will repeat it.

Private health insurance rebates save the government money, as their spend on private patients is much less than medicare patients. Same with private schools.

When Gillard imposed means testing of health rebates she got the middle class both ways, as they paid a higher medicare levy if they dropped out. She couldn't do that with seniors, most of whom don't earn enough to pay a medicare levy, and they are dropping out in droves. Look to a restoration of the private health rebate before the next election, it will save the govt money and pick up votes.

People can't get the message that people won't put money into super unless it pays them to do so. The Keynesian racket of continual inflation means that you can only make money with a term deposit inside a super fund. If the concessions were removed, people will just blow their super and go on the pension.

The other chestnut about hitting the vulnerable is ridiculous. If most of the spending is on that group it is not possible to cut spending without affecting them.

Anyone thinking about balancing the budget by increasing taxation needs to realise the effect of the Laffer Curve, which shows that increased tax rates can translate into reduced revenue. Why people cannot realise that people DON'T WANT TO PAY TAX, and will go to great efforts, with accountants and lawyers, to achieve this, baffles me. Countries in our region, which have a tax rate around 15%, have a much smaller problem with tax avoidance.

All that said, I didn't like the budget much either. If a government is looking for savings, the first thing they should look at is politicians' massive bloated salaries. The next thing to look at is foreign aid. Thank heavens it has at least been frozen, but it should have been abolished, as we cannot afford it. What Australian asset should we sell to enable us to pay foreign aid?

If we don't live within our means, we will end up like Argentina.

People don't want to pay tax! That's why they employ expensive accountants etc, to avoid it!
Corporate company tax currently averages around 1-4%, with around 40% of our multinational guest corporations, many with larger budgets than many sovereign nations, reportedly paying no company tax to anyone?
And around 95% of corporate Australia is now headquartered offshore, to also avoid making a fair contribution?
Although expecting to be able to use all those services and infrastructure, paid for by the taxpayer, as they do business here.
I know many pensioners, who sacrificed their own retirement outcomes, just to ensure, their kids got the best possible start in life, and when the top tax rate was 60%!
I know, given I paid it!
I'd fix medicare by color coding the medicare card, which would then oblige those earning over $80,000.00 PA, to make a $2.00 co-payment, and sliding up, until those over $150,000 per, paying $15.00, or double that, if they carried no personal health insurance.
And if you similarly means tested public hospitals?
I'd warrant many more would then opt for private health care cover?
And with many more in private health, the load on our public system would be lowered, as would individual health care insurance premiums!
Medicare wasn't created so that millionaires could avoid paying for their own health care!
Or overload the public health or education system!
That said, we do need to have a conversation about tax, and I'm reasonably certain many small businesses, would trade a 30% corporate tax rate, and a time consuming GST, plus fuel excise and payroll tax, for a simple unavoidable expenditure tax.
I would start it at 18%, and as others swelled the ranks, and massively increased the pool, that rate could be lowered!
In much the same way, health insurance premiums could be lowered, if the pool of consumers where significantly enlarged; and without any reduction in service delivery!
Rhrosty.

Footnote:
An 18% stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax, is effectively an 11% tax, given it allows the current compliance costs of around 7% to be pocketed.
And if we were to add in the world's cheapest energy costs, how many would then flock to these shore to take advantage, and in so doing, massively spread the load?
I just don't understand the current emphasis of upgrading roads as the choice of increased infrastructure funding.
We are already in a 26 billion dollar hole, importing 91% of our oil requirements! And in so doing, sending 26 billions of dead money, offshore.
If we could just keep that same money in our own economy, and factor in the usual multiplier factors, that same money could do around 150 billions worth or work inside the domestic economy, before it exhausted!
Moreover, if we rolled out electrified rapid rail, we'd use only locally available fuel!
And we'd massively limit the time commuters spent entirely unproductive, stress related time, on gridlocked roads!
Rhrosty.

<Private health insurance rebates save the government money, as their spend on private patients is much less than medicare patients. Same with private schools.>

Private health insurance rebate, only saves the government money if people who have private health insurances use it.

However costs are divided up with the government component for services, then there is the private health insurance component, and then the out of pocket expenses.

Some private schools receive more money per student than do public schools.

Whilst it appears that Private health insurance and Private schools save the government money, it transfers the much more expense to the individual.