<< …you can't deny that you would prefer NO immigration to Australia… >>

Yes I can Suse. I’ve had always advocated net zero immigration, which would still give us a significant immigration program.

But we need to approach that level gently, over a period of several years, after making a big significant first cut.

<< …except those from the 'Mother Country' maybe? >>

It is not the composition of our immigration intake or their place of origin that is of concern to me; it is the numbers and how that affects our quality of life, environment, economy and the prospects of us achieving a sustainable society.

But then you know this don’t you.

So I take it that you can now see my point about immigration and the merit of considerably reducing it in a time of budgetary difficulty, yes?

Do you agree?

Or would you like us to continue with the current very high immigration rate, which is costing us in the order of 80b$ pa just to duplicate all the basic infrastructure like roads, hospitals, houses, and everything else in order to accommodate these new residents.

I take it that you can now see the utter absurdity of Abbott continuing to uphold this rate of immigration while at the same time expressing grave concerns about our ability to balance the books and pay for infrastructure.

You do of course realise that if high immigration is retained, with all the enormous costs associated with it, then there is a higher likelihood of cuts to all manner of other things like paid parental leave and the pension, and for an increase in GST, and in short; a general belt-tightening approach which will affect the ‘have-nots’ much more than the ‘haves’.

People here who are lamenting "the state of the books" should keep in mind the trickery-fakery of Joe Hockey.

His MYEFO was a state-of-the-art exercise in faking an economic emergency in order to restructure economic and social policy.

Fair enough, if you choose to believe him, but most economic commentators see right through the stunt.

This:
http://www.afr.com/f/free/business/companies/inconsistency_in_budget_priorities_8dg88SUBsc4JtcvBKdMlAM

"According to Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey, the MYEFO revealed a blow out in the projected cumulative underlying budget deficits over the four years to 2016-17 of $68 billion."

"Yet by my calculations, virtually all of this upward revision – around $60 billion – reflects deliberate decisions by the new government.

New costly policy decisions include $9.1 billion from the abolition of the carbon tax, $3.6 billion from the decision not to proceed with a raft of other already announced taxes, $8.8 billion to boost Reserve Bank of Australia reserves, and another $9 billion in spending on roads, border security and education.

There’s also the $4.9 billion cost in cutting the corporate tax rate to 28.5 per cent (as previously costed by the Coalition), which is conveniently buried in “parameter” rather than policy revenue changes as its details were “still being finalised”.

What’s more, the MYEFO contained a large $10 billion boost to the contingency reserve over the forward estimates, a good chunk of which appears to include even more election commitments (such as the net spending cost of the paid parental leave scheme)."

"But the biggest trick in the MYEFO, however, was the $36 billion in revenue reductions over the forward estimates period due to weaker economic growth and terms of trade assumptions.

There’s debate whether these ­revisions were justified or not, as ­Treasury’s own independent PEFO analysis a few months earlier came to a much more optimistic conclusion. We’ll know soon enough, however, if the government eventually needs to revise up its economic growth and revenue projections again."

Suze, Tony Abbott has made a major blunder with his toning down of his PPL policy, as all he had to do was table it and it would have been rejected. A foolish move on his part because as long as the sun continues to shine, he would never have got this policy through, in fact, I suspected all along it was a shame aimed at sucking in the gullible at the election.

Paul and that other insect,
To simplify our debt, imagine if you owned your home and had $20K in saving, and zero debt.

Then, six years later, through poor management you had not bought anything else, yet you now owe $600,000 on your home. This is what labor and your lot achieved.

Now try telling me that's not a serious debt problem.

I will come back to you two latter, damned work restriction.

Foxy, the carbon tax.

What I don't understand is why the power generators are charged the tax. I say this because one, they generate for us, and two, any impost to business is simply passed on.

A much better way to cut emissions, (the main aim of the tax) would have been to tax the users, us.

I say this because one, it wouldn't be passed on (apart from business users ) and two, consumers immediate reaction would have been to reduce their usage.

The result would have been less power used, less emissions omitted and no tax.

Now just back to Paul and that other insect, our kids never went without, simply because hard work paid off. No support form the government, but hey, we didn't need it.

They will be left in a very good place, where they can enjoy a holiday in their Whitsunday unit, or perhaps on the banks of the Brisbane river. Maybe they can just stay home and look over Moreton bay, or perhaps check out the gas cash cow Dad managed to secure for them through is hard efforts.

As for me, I love my job, on/off roster, working less than six months of the year and being paid near $80 grand for the privilege. The problem is, as there is rarely much to do, I like to keep in touch with OLO where you come across some interesting people, some lovely people like Foxy and the occasional insect.

Gee I hope you two don't have to work till your 70, then rely on crumbs. But then again, why would I care.

Yep, life's great a the nursing home.

BTW guys, I'm retiring at 57 or so, because after all, it would be silly to accumulate all these assets and not enjoy them. Cheers!

Ludwig, Susie & some others are hyperventilating over stopping
immigration without having a clue as to what is going on.
In a couple of years time when the penny drops in a few countries,
then migration by so called refugees will be reversed and countries
will have more to worry about than being politically correct.

Susie, you fall into the trap of thinking that the world gives a damn
what Australia does about anything let alone immigration.
Even if they did care they would probably want their government to
copy us and pull up the drawbridge.

There will not be any choice when the next GFC arrives sometime after 2017.

rehctub,

Since when do respected OLOer's refer to fellow posters as "that other insect"?

It appears you're no so refined as you would have us believe.

It's fascinating reading about your assets and your cash cow, etc...

And it's so typical of the petite bourgeois to list all their achievements thus. In the world of cringing lower-middle class shopkeepers of a certain ilk, they feel their worth as a human being is fundamentally tied to their material success. They raise themselves on self-constructed pillars of sham sensibilities and decency, congratulating themselves, showing disdain and lack of empathy for the "lower orders"...asking them to show respect", etc as if they are really some sort of modern aristocracy and we should be in awe of their outlook.

Here's a tip, you come across as a moderately educated middle-class butcher who seems to think he's a spokesman for the upper echelons of society.

Nothing more amusing that your ilk blow their own trumpet while repeatedly calling for society to take a huge step backwards to 18th century social policies.

The funniest thing is that if you had have been plying your trade back then without modern social prerogatives you would have only made a reasonable living and maybe afforded your business premises and your house....not much more for a moderately educated petite bourgeois butcher back then.