You are right of course Bec, it has to be an attack on spending as well
as income.
I am beginning to suspect that these debts, not just our own, but the
debts of the US and the European countries as well, will never be repaid.

Sometime after 2017 there will be another crash, and the financial
collapse will be of such a magnitude, that will mean that all debts will be "forgiven".
To be fair, it would have to apply to all loans, housing loans, car
loans, credit card loans etc etc.
If all these debts are not forgiven the Financial Stability Board will
seize depositors funds to repay bank debts and cover bonds.

Whatever way it turns out we will all end up with no money and no debt.
Any paper money in your mattress will be useful for starting a fire.

Folks,
Stop calling it a TAX its correct name is the Tony Abbott X-factor! you may abbreviate it to TAX, but please do not refer to it as a TAX. Some of the 'Usual Suspects' are sensitive to broken promises. Remember how they banged on about Gillard and her broken promise. The 'Usual Suspects' would much prefer a "leave" on Battlers rather than see billionaire mining tycoons and big polluters pay their way. They would much prefer $75,000 welfare payments to millionaire mums to be spent on a new Range Rover or European holiday, than seeing batters getting a fair deal. The same mob see nothing wrong in blowing billions on 'toys for the boys' in the shape of billion dollar war machines, the only use would be to kill innocent people in the third world!

Hasbeen, Butch and anyone else, really the answer is plain to see, tax those who rip off our resources, tax those that pollute our sky's, stop the millionaire mums from doing a cash grab, cut the massive corporate welfare, dump the folly of outrageous military spending. And then and only then Abbott might stand half a chance of managing the economy, but I doubt it!

t's an interesting argument and I suppose it tends to come down to which side of the fence you are currently sitting.
There was an article in the Australian called " No the rich don't pay a fair share of tax …Just most of it"

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=iRepUruvLqeN8Qfly4DgBQ&gws_rd=cr#q=No+the+rich+don't+pay+a+fair+share+of+tax-+just+most+of+it

Which indicates just how many don't assess the benefit paid back to them indirectly by the ones that do pay tax. But to be fair in this debate, there is also a critique of this article which draws attention to some of the facts that people should also consider about the wealthy. Although I think, being more visible, they make an easier target.
.
http://paul-abbott.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-rich-dont-pay-fair-share-of-tax.html

Bec,

Tony's grab line is a false analogy.

This article pertains to the US, but explains how household/credit card debt is not like a govt's public debt.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/why-public-debt-is-not-like-credit-card-debt/

"That’s where government borrowing comes in. Unlike private credit-card debt, public borrowing can improve a depressed economy’s performance.

When government borrows, it invests in projects that cycle right back into the private economy. These are usually things the economy needs, anyway, that make it more productive or are necessary services curtailed by the recession, like schools and road repair. Superstorm Sandy, for example, made clear the need for massive public outlays to protect our coasts."

"In World War Two the government borrowed massive sums to win the war. By the end of the war the debt ratio was about 120 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 72 percent today. But the war turned out to be the greatest unintended economic stimulus of all time: GDP increased by about 50 percent during the war.

After the war, far from sandbagging the recovery, all that debt-financed prosperity propelled the postwar boom. The Fed kept interest rates low, so government could afford the interest payments. The economy grew so much faster than the debt that by 1978 the debt ratio was down to about 27 percent."

Austerity douses economic activity - when what you want is to keep economic activity trundling along. That's what Labor did and that's why we've had one of the fastest growing economies in the world with an AAA credit rating.

You don't receive an AAA credit rating if you are a credit risk or an economic basket case (as Eleventy Joe would have you believe)

Poirot

I agree with you to an extent, but nearly all the Labour debt went into consumption which is bad debt. What is needed is debt that provides investment long term and the only thing that the socialists did was to invest in the NBN (school halls was also a debacle) without a cost benefit analysis, and we have seen where that's going. We have mortgaged the future for nothing lasting, but a great big interest payment.

Most politician have short term vision (Liberals included) but the liberals do tend to spend their time paying off the debt the opposition ran up.

Paul, taxing the polluter is arse about, we should be taxing the user, because aftervall, the generator is only generating for our needs. If you tax the user you will see a huge decrease in emissions from day one. Of cause if the generator is an exporter, then that's different and requires a different approach.

The simple fact is that a tax on business is added on, plus some, where as a tax on the private user does not get inflated.

As for taxing the rich, for all those tall poppies out there, the next time either you, or someone you know, gets a reduced train ticket, a free prescription, a free visit to the doctor, a discountnon theirmrates, rent assistance, family supplements, in fact, any hand out, just remember, those GIFTS didn't come from the government, they came from the high income earners, the one you continually despise.

The very least you could do was show a little respect. You should all be ashamed of yourselves formbeing so disrespectful tomthenvery hands that provide the much needed support you receive FOR FREE!