Well, all the "Business as Usual" proponents are waffling on.
Economists are only just starting to realise that austerity and very
low interest rates as economic tools are not working.

That is to be expected as they were the tactics of the cheap energy era
up to the early 2000s. With the end of cheap energy, growth world wide
is sagging, some suffering more than others.

If you doubt that cheap energy has ended have a look at energy company
balance sheets. Their return on capital expenditure is dismal.
What happened to Woodside ? A 98% drop in profit !
That might get better next year but can we then afford what they sell ?

Tristian, there is little doubt the proposed Ng changes, if implemented, would have a huge negative effect on used housing.

There are many out there who own homes and choose not to invest in housing, but what they do do is draw on the equity in their homes to fund a lifestyle.

This lifestyle plays a huge part in our economy as they but thing from investments, shares and the likes, to boats, cars, caravans, even holidays or their kids education. All this spending could be placed at risk if the values of their homes take a dive.

Do you think its worth the risk?

Im the first to suggest that NG needs to be looked at, but we can ill afford to take an axe to it as Bill is suggesting.

One suggestion I have heard is to limit Ng claims to $20K annually. There may be something in that, but again, Bills policy only mentions housing and there are so many alternatives for investors, few of which provide affordable places for people to live.

This policy will drive the cost of new homes up, along with rents, drive the values of used homes down, causing mass pain, and it will kill the dreams of many hard working wanna be first homes buyers.

Its plain dumb!

Has been ; If the issue is capital flight because capitalists want to maximise dividends even though the business is already profitable then in that you have yet another problem with capitalism.

Though many will not even consider this because of the dominant Ideology perhaps the answer could be for Government to take a stake in the business (eg: Holden), and to encourage workers to do the same. To create a mixed stakeholder co-operative...

The point is there is a 'race to the bottom' in wages and conditions to maximise profits and dividends beyond what is necessary to sustain a business. Of course we should not accept a 'race to the bottom'. We should search for ways to circumvent it.

Also be targeting niche markets we can improve profitability without cutting wages and conditions as well.

Finally: Subsidies were 'worth the government's while' when you consider the extra tax revenue, and money saved from welfare to keep 50,000 people in work....

When you talk about workers 'not paying net tax' I'd be interested in seeing those figures and knowing where they came from. Does it include the GST? (no of course not)

Of course some disadvantaged people ; the disabled, those on minimum wage - will not pay much tax... And of course those on $200,000 or even many millions a year will pay more tax... And that will affect proportionalities. Personally I don't get how anyone's labour can be worth that kind of money while others are on $560/week full time!

Telstra changed with the times and would have done so regardless of ownership. A public but corporatized Telstra could achieve the same thing - but with a few selected interventions - cross-subsidies for the most disadvantaged. But if you want *waste* try this: Because of Telstra's privatisation the current Government has had to pay about $7 BILLION just to access Telstra pits and wires for the NBN! So we sell it off for pittance and then have to pay $7 billion just to access that privatised infrastructure down the track.. Ridiculous...

Tristian, if you were old enough you would realise what's ridiculous is that almost every asset that's been sold has been to pay down massive debts, of the day, racked up by incompetent labor governments.

As for the poor paying GST, the lion share of their income goes on rent and food. Rent is GST free and so too is food if you buy basics.

Of cause grog, cigs and gambling are not GST free, but they are a personal choice though.

,

If the privatisations were 'just to pay off massive debts' then look up what our public sector debt was at the time COMPARED with the debts of our major trading partners. (the US, Japan etc) It stands to reason that if you're in debt the last thing you want to do is to sell off productive assets that add to your bottom line. The value of assets always has to be considered alongside any debt.

Privatisation of productive assets *also reduces* our capacity to *service* our debts. The reality is that privatisation was an Ideological agenda. Pursued by both major parties. Or for Keating perhaps it was also a source for a short rush of cash to pay off voters come election time in a way which frankly was unsustainable. (because based on privatisations rather than the progressive tax reform we needed)

As for the impoverished - You say it yourself they can barely afford to pay for a roof over their head and food. And yet people here want to grind them down further 'to let the labour market clear' - when there are better options. Like an industry policy and a stronger social wage.

Tristian, wages are just one part of the overall business expense, and its the consumer that dictates the prices a business can charge, so while increasing wages sound so simple, the reality is the businesses suffer. A classic example being $2 milk, as you would struggle to find a person who does not know it is killing dairy farmers, yet they still buy the cheap milk.

People vote with their hearts, but spend from their wallets.

There are two ways of making a decent wage in this country, way one is a great skill set, way two is longer hours. What many want is for a cleaner to work 9-5 Mon to Friday and afford a house. Its impossible.