Ahem, errr... where does the government get its money from, sonofgloin?

>>This was achieved while receiving record prices for our main sale items of coal and iron ore and a PROMISE that it would come in balanced.<<

In Australia, the government does not sell coal and iron ore. Companies do. Government revenue comes from taxation. Taxation of companies, and taxation of people.

Given the chance, people will minimize the amount of tax they pay, as is their right. Clever companies minimize the amount of tax they pay, as is their right also. They even lobby against any new taxes, as they are perfectly entitled to do. So there is not a direct link between "record prices for our main sale items of coal and iron ore" and the budget surplus or deficit. It is indirect, via our taxation system, that levies tax on their declared profits.

A surplus is achieved by extracting a larger amount of tax from people and businesses, than you spend on services.

A deficit is the result of spending more on services than the tax you extract from people and businesses.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Sonofgloin,there are a few ways we can put a stop to this nonsense.We need a new Govt bank,get the RBA to start creating new credit and a 1% tax on all derivatives.

No one has the balls to do what is necessary.

We certainly could do with exactly what you said Arjay but as you well know the RBA gets direction from the IMF, as do our governments. The IMF gets direction from the European banking cartel and they have been accumulating wealth at a staggering rate in since the 1980’s.

I honestly wonder at the “Simple souls” that are Labor acolytes, and I will qualify that description by a few facts about when we lost Labor..

I vividly recall Hawke in 1986 sticking his "anti privatization" oar in at the S.A. state elections. "LABOR WILL NOT LET THE PEOPLES ASSETS BE SOLD" the lying chameleon blathered.

In 1990 Hawke slammed the coalition's proposals to privatize the Commonwealth Bank….but he and Keating made a decision in favour of partial privatization later in the same year, and that was the end of the Labor party, they were ready to sell off everything and they did. The Hawke-Keating Labor government “pushes” were instigated by the NSW Labor Right Fabians.

Our Commonwealth Bank went from the 'people's bank' to a private organisation devoted to maximizing returns to its shareholders and managers, and free of any social or community obligations. The Hawke-Keating government's embrace of privatization represented a “FUNDAMENTAL” break with the traditional policies of the Labor Party.

If you ask a pleb the difference between the two parties the answer is at its essence, one is for the well to do and the other is for the battler. The Global Labor political movements of a generation ago struggled to retain and grow assets that were owned by the plebs….the commonwealth.

The Right fought to bring as many assets and profit making endeavors to the market so “all could share”, well knowing that the rich end up with most of the shares. What now differentiates Labor from Coalition? They both work towards taking assets from the commonwealth and selling them off…What is LABOR?

From the 1980’s the Labor leadership displayed unparalleled hypocrisy and the Fabians run the roost over the officials and branch members. Labor acolytes are marionettes, they know nothing.

Sonofgloin I like your comment and the general level of discussion. Sadly for all of us the simple fact is that the populace of Australia largely remains on one side of the economic fence as opposed to our political players, Swan, Gillard, Abbot, Milne, whoever, who remain entrenched on the side of the now disproven and uncontrolled free market ideology which Hawke and Keating sold the country into.

Neither the present Labor regime or the Coalition pretenders show any sign or rhetoric regarding the demolition of the current set of economic fences. They continue to hide behind a smokescreen of diversion , misinformation and to a degree, a reliance on our apathy; they do not serve our democracy well or consequently us the voters.

Hawke and Keating imposed the Regan/Thatcher ideology on the Australian people; had they gone to the people for a direct mandate to make this profound change and dismantling of our economic control mechanisms the voters of the time may well have stopped this far reaching and costly move. So much for representative democracy.
Den 71

Den71>> Hawke and Keating imposed the Regan/Thatcher ideology on the Australian people<<

Yes exactly so. That fact on its own should have rung alarm bells in the Labor rank and file. I saw it, obviously you saw it…..what did the likes of my china plate Belly see…..nothing….he thinks the party is still the same, as do most welded on’s.

When you evaluate it Labor ruined Australia. The Coalition was always the puppet of the corporations, so anything that they did that disadvantaged us and advantaged big business was no surprise….almost expected and their right if the electorate voted them in.

But no one expected Labor to serve the corporate masters….but they morphed and did, and still do. They went against the mandate of the people then and Gillard did it recently with the calculated no carbon tax lie.

I ask again….what is this abomination of self-serving liars and thieves who’s only point of difference from their sworn political enemies are social issues? Labor my clacka….social differentiators more like it.

Yes, Pericles.
It is remarkable how people tend to overlook the bleeding obvious, isn't it?
The problem with borrowing money (or “inviting foreign investment” or selling bonds) to cover a deficit is that the monies received are not a gift.
For some peculiar reason, lenders and investors always expect considerably more in return, than they put in.
Borrowing money in order to make money is a perfectly legitimate and viable business practice.
Borrowing money to pay for repairs and maintenance, services and servicing previous debts is a slippery spiral no business (or individual, or gov) should ever want to find itself on.
I agree with Gimli and Den. The answer seems pretty clear to me: if you don't like paying taxes (who does?) then the gov needs to go into business (again). Look at Singapore. Admittedly a remarkably compact state compared to our sprawling nation, but by Australian standards income tax is ridiculously low. Their gov. has a finger in more than 60% of all domestic businesses -many of which are global- and in many cases a whole arm; eg
Australian Optus customers are effectively subsidising Singapore tax payers.
I wonder what Singapore would think of the concept of gov.s only being allowed to own/operate businesses which lose money?
I would personally like to see a small portion of the Future Fund dedicated to Angel investments. For far too long have Australian innovations been forced overseas.
Superannuation is another area that the gov. could get directly involved in. Forcing every Australian wage earner -via their employer- to hand over a fixed percentage of their income to a bunch of w-wonkers so they can play silly-buggers on the free market monopoly board is beyond bizarre.