Wobbles, a very good post, could not agree more. The theory of trickle-down economics, which was very much in vogue in the nineteenth century and a center piece of 'Reaganomics' from that bozo himself Ronnie Reagan in the 1980's has been well and truly debunked, belongs on the 'Mythbusters' program.
Those who still cling to this failed theory would be better off embracing some of the perverted aspects of Protestantism, particularly the one which states the poor are only poor because of their past sins against god. Sound good, what do you think Butch?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

We can’t meaningfully talk about the budget and the difficulties in balancing it without mentioning the enormous constantly increasing demand for all the basics as a result of very high immigration.

All this sort of economic growth, which contributes to our GDP, is seen as being good for our economy. But it is NOT! It is an enormous BURDEN!

The bottom line of economics is to match supply and demand, and to make sure that the supply capability can meet the demand, in an ongoing manner, with a big safety margin.

But what are we doing? We are constantly increasing the demand for everything. We need a constantly increasing rate of economic growth, of mining, of basic infrastructure, etc, just to stand still in terms of real per-capita economics.

There is a strong desire to uphold and even increase immigration, because it creates economic growth. And as our budgetary woes worsen, there are many wonky thinkers out there who will no doubt be pushing this line more and more.

But what we need is EXACTLY the opposite!

We need to pull right back on this rapid increase in demand for everything, head towards a stabilisation of demand, and allow ouselves to catch up with all the basic infrastructure and services.

All the discussion around the budget is about tax and who is copping the biggest burden, and related things. Well if were to magically fix all of this taxation stuff, and make all our politicians much more frugal and stop subsidising the mining industry, etc, etc, we would still right up against it for as long as we maintained very high immigration and hence a very high rate of increase in the demand for everything.

Now, in light of the budgetary issues and the seeming impossibilities of balancing the budget, let alone even pulling back at all from the enormous rate of borrowing and hence increasing debt, is the time to work directly towards STOPPING the demand side of the economic equation from ever-rapidly increasing.

Surely this is of PARAMOUNT importance.

Yeah, rehctub, we're all familiar with your Ebenezer Scrooge routine.

Nothing new there!

Here yer go...

http://m.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/sorry-treasurer-but-your-tax-figures-are-a-long-way-wide-of-the-mark-20140805-3d6mq.html

"The Treasurer has made a big mistake.

"Higher-income households pay half their income in tax," Mr Hockey told Channel Nine this week while defending his budget.

He said it twice: "Higher-income households pay half their income in tax".

It's a simple enough mistake. Australians on the top tax rate do indeed pay 45 cents in the dollar. The rate cuts in at $180,000. They also pay the temporary deficit reduction levy (another 2 per cent), the Medicare levy (yet another 2 per cent) and the Medicare surcharge where applicable (a further 1.5 per cent). The total comes to 50.5 cents in the dollar.

But the amount of tax actually collected from those Australians is nothing like that much, as a quick workout of the Australian Tax Office calculator makes clear.

An Australian earning $200,000 pays around 36 cents in the dollar including the Medicare levy and the deficit surcharge, far short of the claimed 50. Even an exceptionally high earner on $500,000 pays no more than 44 cents in the dollar."

Eleventy Joe isn't a Treasurer's bootlace.

Paul

If you're not distinguishing between money people have because the government didn't take it off them, and money people have because the government took it from someone else and gave it to them, you're just spouting moral and intellectual gibberish, and are not competent to express an opinion on anything to do with political economy.

Jardine, those 3 lines from you sound like moral and intellectual gibberish, so I guess you're not competent to express an opinion on anything to do with political economy ... whatever "political economy" is, ha ha.

Hi Foxy, the FIFO market is gradually and effectively being eroded by the job shops that operate here in Oz - primarily from overseas bases with branches in most major cities and regional offices nearer to the mining centres. A commensurate wage or hourly rates is not indexed to anything resembling fair payment.

Viz a viz the salaries/wages of a Pilbara worker in skilled trades could pay off an 'average house' i.e. 3 bedroom brick venereal anywhere around the country in around 3 years on their pay packet - even with mum at home looking after the crew while dad went away to the far flung outposts of the empire.

Let's say a 1926 built post Federation in Gladesville in 1972 cost $25 K, a new Kingswood say $4,500 and an electrician was paid $5 per hour on an 80 hour week ? 3 weeks on, 1 week off roster.

Compare that with today, and the same house in Gladesville is worth $1.2 Million and a FIFO gets $190 k p.a. It takes twice as long for that house to be paid off. The school aged hoomans at home getting ready for uni are looking at another 10 - 15 year paying off HECS debts whereas HECS didn't exist in 1972.

Really are we much better off under a Liberal (fascist) Government, but are we better off under a Labor (communist) government?

I think we desperately need another viable option here !