How else to reduce the debt...simple, CUT SPENDING!

To use Tonys own analogy,
If the Government is like a big household that must live within its means then said household can not continue to demand a raise from the boss, the household needs to learn to tailor their spending to suit their income.

And this from someone who voted National

Ok Paul, let's cut to the chase.

Whether or not it is a tax is only debating whether or not TA is going to break a promise, but, no amount of he said she said will fix our problem.

It's my understanding that you don't want to see any pension age increased, yet you must agree that we are commencing work latter (paying less taxes) and living longer. It's a no brainer.

It's also my understanding that you object to the stopping of illegals from entering our shores and expending our welfare. Even though we have to borrow that welfare in the first place.

So in summing up, you and your labor mates have aided in us accumulating some $600 billion in debt, yet, you are pro illegals and against increasing the pension age, as well as being against increasing taxes in an effort to at least try to lessen some of this huge debt.

So, How do you propose we fix the massive debt problem you and your labor mates, through your unconditional support of those economic vandals created without cutting back, or increasing taxes?

Or, is this as I suspect, just another he said, she said rant.

Here's another cheer squad for the LNP

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/the-deficit-levy-is-just-a-new-tax-by-another-name/story-e6frg71x-1226900126241

The ‘deficit levy’ is just a new tax by another name"

".... So it is deeply troubling, and puzzling, that the Abbott government appears poised to announce a temporary deficit levy in its first, emblematic budget...."

".....Cutting spending and lifting taxes are not economically equivalent ways to engineer a budget surplus. Higher taxes hurt the incentive to work, offend individuals’ rights to the fruits of their labour, encourage costly avoidance and prop up distortionary and feckless government programs...."

Bec,

"To use Tonys own analogy,
If the Government is like a big household that must live within its means then said household can not continue to demand a raise from the boss, the household needs to learn to tailor their spending to suit their income."

You might like to explain in that case, why Hockey has ramped up borrowing, doubling Labor's rate to $68 billion in just 28 weeks?

He's a fake who has faked a budget emergency for one of the lowest debt ratio to GDP countries in the OECD.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg

When is a tax not a tax?

When it is used to pay for some ratbag Green/Labor scheme.

Like letting in tens of thousands of shonky boat people, or building bloody great bird munching wind mills, & pretending they can generate useful electricity, because then it is a rip off.

When are you chatterers going to admit that we are only in trouble because your lot were such bloody idiots with our money?

Poiret, I think I may have not explained clearly enough, TA said "Like households and like businesses, governments have to live within their means. Every dollar that government spends is a dollar taken from the people in taxes or in borrowings. Everything that government does has to be paid for either in today’s taxes or tomorrow’s taxes – with interest. And continuing a cycle of debt and deficits might briefly save a government from a bad headline, but it won’t help you, the people, to plan a stronger and better future."
His answer to that however was to load on another tax...(the pay rise) I was turning his own analogy back on him. If it were up to me I would be taking a big knife to a lot of spending. Ie, Medicare and paying $5 towards Dr's Appointments...at least then the people using it are the ones paying!

I can't understand why they want to get rid of the
mining tax and the carbon tax - and target the most
vulnerable in our society. Why the Paid Parental
Scheme - when free child-care would be cheaper.
Why pay polluters not to pollute - that's not logical.
And why continue giving tax concession to the rich?
Get rid of politicians perks - surely they also need
to be part of the "tightening our belts," scenario.
And look at how much it's costing us to continue to
support our former PMs. You can't continue to have
expensive office-fitouts, overseas travel for spouses
and family, private libraries, chaeuffer-driven cars,
et cetera - and then target pensioners.
Taxes? Great - as long as everyone pays their fair
share - and not just those who can least afford it.