We all know the difference between good and bad debt, Senator. We all know that the only excuse for borrowing is to use those borrowings to invest, and investment means " ...building productive assets that are intended to increase future ability to produce". From production comes savings; savings that can be used for the welfare which you hold in contempt, Senator if your recent tirade against the Age Pension, and the 'poverty' it is anything to go by. The Age Pension is not welfare,Senator; it is a right, made available when politicians were better men than you are. You completely ignore the fact that it is only just recently superannuation contributions were made compulsory, and that, for some time yet, many Australians will be reliant on a full Age Pension or a part Age Pension. But, like all politicians, you live in an ivory tower, and know very little of real life. If I could mention just mention that little-used word 'savings' again, one of the most useful savings we could have would be the abolition of the Senate, and the reclamation of the huge cost of ageing school boys and girls like you.

Yes David; and that needs to start, with post politics pensions and entitlements!

Ever heard the expression leading by example?

I dare say, you have not taken any day trip in Com cars for a wine tasting, or used your"EXPENDITURE" account to fly to a nearby political rally in a chopper or used it for a real estate buying trip?

Let's rip into pensioners and the destitute barely surviving on job start or a single mum's pension instead! All while protecting much much more expensive negative gearing, unearned capital gains and SUPER super/tax minimizing family trusts etc!?

You've got all your MOST IMPORTANT (me, me and guns) priorities well and truly sorted, haven't you mate?
Alan B.

Between 2004 and 2014 BHP Billiton alone showed a 'profit to ordinary shareholders' of some $1,017 Billion (Australian dollars). In the same time, deaths and injuries attributable to them on their sites in the WA Supreme Court cost them $576,000...not a bad "profit margin" I'd reckon.

Now we have the mining lobby (surprise surprise ) backing the Barnett government saying something to the tune of: "The profits from an increased tax to big miners will go primarily to the Eastern states proportionally and Western Australians will lose on such a tax." Well WA and Australia certainly lost out during the boom times didn't we ?

Anyone taking a short drive around the Perth Airport precinct will notice today, that where there formerly stood yard after yard of mining support industries, e.g. equipment hire, recruitment companies, transport yards, welding shops etc stretching from Midland to the Perth CBD, there is now nothing but vacant land and empty shop fronts.

Brendon Grylls has it right, the mining boom was given away by both state and federal, LNP & ALP governments of the day. As I've posted previously - like a drunken sailor ashore with his pay packet.

To say now that an increased 'tax per tonne' will hurt them is nothing short of propaganda and more jobs for the boys n girls post politics. The amount of good equipment that was just thrown into industrial skips whilst the Good Days were in swing had to be seen to be believed. Brand new valves worth several thousands of $ thrown out, acre upon acre of brand new stores taken from shelves and bulldozed into the ground.

When I hear politicians squeak: "Good debt/bad debt." I wonder how many of them will have offers of employment as consultants or CEO's somewhere not too far along the track?

With their wasteful and spendthrift habits during politics, helicopter rides and taxpayer funded junkets galore, it's no wonder they are eminently suitable as mining CEO's.

ttbn

'The Age Pension is not welfare,Senator; it is a right, made available when politicians were better men than you are.'

Quite right. And these were a mixture of Conservative and Labour 'men'. At least both sides of politics have recognised that basic fact, even though more recently, political dingbats on both sides insist on arguing that the aged pension is 'unsustainable'.

Because I've been mostly self-employed throughout my working life, and didn't have the survival nous to find a benevolently endowed job in the Public Service or corporate executive class, I have little in the way of superannuation. However, I sat down recently and did some number-crunching. By the time I retire, I will have paid well over $1 million in tax. If anyone tells me that I don't deserve an aged pension because it's 'unsustainable', they will suddenly find my calculator shoved up a place where the sun doesn't shine.

Dear Killarney,

While I feel for your loss, I can't see how you can retrieve it, not in an ethical way anyway.

The tax that you (and I) paid, is long gone. It was used up to pay all manners of unscrupulous people who had no inhibitions about accepting moneys that were stolen or taken from others by force against their will.

Thus, the government no longer has your money - they are paupers, they are in debt, they are bankrupt, they have no legitimate money of their own, but worst of all, the money that they still are willing to pay pensioners (as well as senators, teachers, doctors, administrators, cleaners, soldiers and policemen) is tainted, stolen money, it's not theirs.

This remains the situation so long as tax remains involuntary. Even when the government prints new money, in effect they steal that money from others by devaluing their savings.

Once you notice this simple truth, surely you wouldn't want to touch that money again!

Killarney: Absolutely agree with those, poge ma hone sentiments, and follow the calculator, with a (pile driven) car, furniture and house!
Cheers, Alan B.

yuyutsu

Firstly, I should state that I'm not that badly off. I own my home outright, am completely free of debt and have substantial savings. I'll get by, pension or no pension. My point was more of a moral one.

I don't think it helps to blame various governments for driving the nation into massive debt. Australia's public spending patterns are little different from most Western countries over the last few decades.

In the same way that families can no longer survive on one income, through no fault of their own, countries can no longer survive on taxation and investment alone. The contemporary world places huge financial demands on governments. Where once they mainly only had to fund public infrastructure and services, they now have to be all things to all interest groups - globally and domestically.

Keeping up with technology, corporate sector demands, tax-incentive madness, administering regulations for this and regulations for that (to name a few) drains even the most sturdy of public koffers. Globalisation has sent capital tax profits offshore and a criminally rigged global financial system has creamed off the investment profits that governments once relied on to supplement taxation. So, is it any wonder that governments will sneak off to the nearest pawn shop?

Not sure where it will all end and I don't particularly care - as long as I can pay for my nursing home.

Alan B

You want fries with that?

A simple fix would be to offer an opt out for church groups and they can privately manage all their social security concerns, leaving more money for those on the public system and getting rid of the bad debt very quickly, who knows, maybe the private system may even be in surplus and it could be donated back to the public system as well.

Not every debt is bad. There are good debts, the ones who can be paid off easily and which will provide profit in the future.

David Leyonhjelm, published 9/1/2017 This year the Government is increasing its gross debt by more than $80 billion. At least $25 billion of this is unmistakeably ‘bad debt’.

The good senator will be advantaged by learning how money is created by the banks through credit accounts.

The good senator will learn the only reason national debt is rising is because not only do have to borrow the principle from the banks but we also have to borrow the money to pay the interest on the principle. It does not matter how many hands it passes through or whether it results from profits or losses, it has to be borrowed into existence in the first place.

Many people are under the misapprehension that all countries borrow money from each other. This is patently incorrect because if that were the case then all each country would have to do is forgive each others debt and we would all be back to zero national debt wouldn't we??

If the good senator researched the creation of money he would learn that there is no reason the govt cannot or should not create money for its own uses using the exact same method the banks use. That way there would no interest and therefore no tax but only a small administrative charge.

Perhaps the good senator might like to consider starting with:

The Remarkable Model Of The Commonwealth Bank Of Australia by Ellen Brown,