ttbn; The pink batts was not a government run scheme.
It was for anybody to do it and the government would just hnd them the
money. Some people only saw a couple of batts go up then were told
all done and Wayne give me 2 $thousand.

Kids on the roof etc, it was a rort from start to finish.

Even just today I see an acknowledgement that our growth is declining further.
If we have less & less left over we will not be able to pay the
interest on our borrowings. The government is borrowing (I think),
$1billion a month to pay the interest.

Does that sound like something gurgling away down the tubes ?

ttbn,

1. Step back in time to the 60's when a house was $20,000, and that house is now $500,000, so 52k is really very little to some people, and numerically it is a nothing amount when talking about millions.

2. Home ownership should not be virtually impossible.

3. Look beyond your own position. D0 the numbers. More and more people cannot afford or now choose not to buy things they would like or often need. Single earners could be good to help prevent other burdens due to over population.

4. Are you suggesting unskilled workers should be paid nothing? Great skill can always be paid on merit. Back to the point, if consumers are not p[aid enough from employment then less spending and less manufacturing, and less employment land less revenue.

5. Running the nation is a business and our government agencies do it well, especially compared to others.
It will be interesting to see if the Turnbull mob follow through with the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper focus and infrastructure development.

6. Unprocessed food has indirect GST via all the goods and services required to produce the unprocessed food, the price of which ultimately pays that GST.

We export less because we don't have anything more to export. I don't know of any glut in export product. Do you, ttbn?

It's really not the spending, it is lack of income, lack of revenue.
This is a time when more spending is needed, not less.

My view anyway

ttbn,

Paul,
Before you cmplain about the difference between weekday and weekend prices, first be sure it's real, and the single example you noticed wasn't just due to a catalogue sale starting on the monday.

Even if it isn't real, don't assume the unions or pay rates are to blame. It could just be an attempt at demand management — either to get the shop to use more at quiet times, or to ensure it doesn't sell out before the next delivery.

The claim that as a country "living on debt is the main reason for the trouble we are in" is a DANGEROUS LIE.

It's a lie because since the government restricted its borrowing to Australian dollars only (which has been general policy for the last 30 years and absolute policy for over 20) government debt has caused us no harm whatsoever.

It's dangerous because politicians, believing governments have harmed the economy with the decisions they made based on the mistaken belief that government debt was a bad thing.

Most money exists as debt. Apart from the relatively small amount of physical cash, the total amount of money is zero.

It could sensibly (though incorrectly IMO) be argued that the amount of private debt before the GFC was the mainncause of the trouble. But since the GFC the problem's been too little debt, not too much.

And if something's worth doing but the private sector's not doing it,why wouldn't it be worth the public sector doing it?

Bazz, labor had quite a few good ideas, they just couldn't implement any of them.

I liken it to wanting to build a new house. You engage the best planners, buy the best materials, then hire a dodgy builder, the result, a great idea ruined through poor implementation.

Doog, all I say about wages is they, like all other things, must be allowed to rise and fall with demands and trends, we are currently in a spiral downward, so wages have to fall as well. Either that or we loose even more jobs. Your call!

JF, just where do you think money comes from, profits.

All you see is the $52K, what you don't consider is the additional 30 odd% on top of this for tax, loading, super etc etc.

I think that I have said all that I havd to say on the matter. It has been polite and useful. I think.

JF,

Of course I don't think low-skilled workers should be paid "nothing". But $52k is too much. I would also like to refer to the difference between 'wants' and 'needs'. Yes, it is desirable, essential really, that all people should have for their needs. Wants are a different matter, and they are not essentials.

Aidan,
I will never be convinced that it is good to live on borrowed money. Apart from 3 mortgages
Paid off many moons ago, I have never borrowed money. I have owned 11 cars, all but the first were brand new, and I paid cash for them. I'm now driving a 7 year old car which is still doing the job. I could go out tomorrow and pay cash for a new one, but I do not NEED a new one. Perhaps that's why I don't have the money worries some people seem to have. When I want something, not need, I save up. We are not all rich, and we certainly should not act as though we are using someone else's money. Old fashioned, but it still works.

rehctub,
In the past I have given example of $100 a week take home pay.
You figure what is needed.
Do the numbers on the basic wage for a family with only one wage earner, after tax.
What is left over for general shopping? Nothing.
The dole has no petrol or other transport costs to go to work and return home daily, for example.

ttbn,
PAYE tax can be reduced to virtually nil, while GST is made very high, as in France (used to be anyway).
In a properly functional ecopnomy I think it essential that consumers spend and consume, but at present many people find they need to save to pay ever increasing costs for absolute essentials.
Less money left over means less to spend.
Too bad for the manufacturers and retail industry.

Cheers