Poirot, treasury providing accurate info, now there's a laugh!

butcher,

"Poirot, treasury providing accurate info, now there's a laugh!"

There really is no hope with fellas like you abounding.

Hockey tries to pretend he releases official Treasury data...and you holler "PROOF!"

I point out that it was entirely his own fiction and not an official Treasury forecast (Like PEFO) and then you belittle Treasury.

(Hockey also tried to say one of his adviser's papers containing a dodgy graph was an official Treasury document)

So carry on....you appear to be enjoying the charlatan's act.

Well, 6 pages now and we still don't have any forum righties who can show that the Coalition has not DOUBLED the deficit.

Doubling the deficit has enabled them to break their MANY and repeated promises that they would not raise tax. It's now "confirmed" by cabinet they are applying a new tax .. the debt tax.

They are lying and calling it just a "levy". It's a TAX, as any economist knows.

Toneliar is an unmitigated liar, untrustworthy and a danger to Australia's economic future and well being.

And the latest news is that the Coalition will also apply another new tax increase in the budget. It's a new tax increase on petrol. The fuel excise (a tax on petrol) will be increased, thus all motorists using petrol will PAY MORE for their petrol. Yet ANOTHER broken promise from the Coalition.

The honesty and credibility of the Coalition is now in utter tatters. It is the most dishonest government in Australia's history.

AND, they have managed to double the deficit.

Nhoj,

Ludwig is right about the costs of immigration. No one disputes that it increases total GDP and makes rich people happy with bigger markets, cheap labour, and opportunities for real estate profiteering, but what matters to most of us is whether it increases per capita GDP. If the population is below the optimum, then it probably would. For example, a little band of pioneers might have enormous natural capital per person, but be too few in number to make effective use of it. This hasn't been the case in Australia for a long time, however. The following link shows growth in GDP and growth in GDP per capita, which has been very sluggish

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/04/no-alan-population-growth-is-not-an-economic-boom/

The 2006 Productivity Commission report on immigration and their 2010/2011 annual report also say that the per capita economic benefits of immigration are too small to be important and mostly distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves. See p. 6

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf

At the same time, the upfront infrastructure costs of our massive 1.8% population growth rate are enormous. The roads, schools, hospitals, etc. are needed right away, but a new resident is likely to take 20 years to contribute enough to pay for his share of them. Jane O'Sullivan estimates $100,000 to $120,000 per person in just the government costs. The economist Ralph Musgrave did a similar estimate for the UK in 2008 and found 30,000 pounds per person for non-housing infrastructure.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/6869.html

"Immigrants do eventually pay this back – after about a generation. But by that time interest on the debt (which is not paid back) resembles the debt itself."

Where is your return on investment? We could save perhaps $20 billion by cutting immigration back to 1990s levels, dwarfing all other savings or tax measures, not counting the welfare savings from a tighter labour market.

1) Drop your gilded Paid Parental Leave scheme - will save about $5 billion per year
2) Get rid of negative gearing - will save about $13 billion per year
3) Cancel the purchase of the F-35 Joint Striker Lemons - will save $12 billion in total
4) End the diesel fuel subsidy - which is NOT the same as introducing or raising a tax - will save about $2.4 billion a year
5) Forego your egotistical and (from a debt-reduction point of view) counterproductive desire to be an "Infrastructure Prime Minister" - will save $10 billion in total
6) Drop Direct Action - will save $3 billion in total

If we really are in a "budgetary emergency", if debt, government spending and government waste really are our gravest challenges at this time, then surely the above can fall by the wayside until you fulfil your primary election 'mandate' to fix the country's finances?

Nhoj,
Since you seem to have all the criticisms please tell us what the answer is?
Please don't tell us to give it back to Labor