A first win for Malcom, so could this be a sign of things to come.

All Bill had was his anti $50 billion to big business, a move that would not be due until another election, while Malcom showed the fundamentals in business, income first, spending second.

It take it that butch is easily persuaded. Mal acts like a puppeteer waving those hands around.
Do you think 40 b$ to big business is ok. That has to be replaced from somewhere.
Best not to create that sort of an expense in the first place.
Mal has been disappointing with his time as PM. He could have set himself up for many years as PM.
There are to many scumbags in his party that should be in their own political party. They know that they would not have a hope in hell of getting elected, so they infiltrate and destroy a liberal party.

Wherever Mal has gone i doubt if he will return there are far to many advisers on his team.

That $40 billion is years away 579, but you knew that didn't you.

Labor spin, its the best they can come up with.

Im afraid too many people still remember the mess they created from 07 to 13

My tip is Malcom has finally found his feet and will now annihilate Bill Shorten because he has nothing.

That 40 b$ was Turnbulls backflip knowing the polls were going against him. What is the value of years in the future,we are talking about this election, that is an ass saving stunt.

I am afraid Mal is only a mouthpiece, the instigators are pulling the strings. He is hamstrung by the Conservative infiltrators.

When things like that happen it is very obvious, where the decisions come from. Mal in his own right would be good, we cannot trust what is behind him making him out of character.

Abbott and his mouthpiece are still lurking around and with Abbott backers still in parliament makes it very hard for Mal.

A challenger against Abbott has arisen a liberal independent, Abbott could very well get rolled altogether. Apparently he is not the most popular man in town, Abbott is still there because he is a liberal [impostor.]

Things are starting to turn dirty, with Liberal Party member Chris Nelson being charged by police for directing racial abuse at Labor's Aboriginal Senator Nova Peris, on her Facebook page.

Seems Nelson is no young hot head being a 64 year old Woy Woy based small businessman operating as a chiropractor and osteopath

Butch, what is a 'MALCOM' is it something like a 'TELECOM'? Why should we WELCOM MALCOM back. Did it go somewhere?

Yes well, what can one say Paul, some are just not up to the task and Julia was only trying to score political points by appointing her in the first place. More wasted millions.

As for Malcom (for your benefit) Turnbull, I felt he finally showed some of what he is made of and made Bill out to be a bit of a dill.

I feel Bill finally has a job ahead of him because while many may thing hes been doing well, the truth is Malcom has been doing badly, which has just made Bill look better than he is. He is still a left over back stabber from the RUDD/ Gillard disaster, a union thug who is willingly offering more money, money we simply don't have. But hey, that's the labot way.

Surprisingly though, not a single mention about negative gearing.

How long can you repeat yourself talking negative gearing. Elections are lost not won. And that is precisely what is happening right now.

While Abbott is in politics we will have a change of govt.

He destroyed the Liberal party, single handedly. All major states are turning away from Libs and Abbott.

579 is right.
While the holy Abbott and his Abbott-like disciples are still polluting the Liberal party, poor old Mal won't be allowed to run things the way he wants to....and everyone knows it.

Because Abbott and his fundy groupies are lurking in the background, undermining anything of substance Mal might want to do, good ol' Billy and his union crowd have got much closer than anyone likes at this election time.

Mal needs to come right out and say what he really feels, and bring all the reasonable-minded Liberals with him. Surely the far-right crazies are not that powerful anymore?

Suze, like it or not, the far right crazies as you call them are about our only hope of climbing out of the hole we are in because no amount of talk will solve our problems. We need a dictator of sorts and Mal is no such person as he is a liberal 'wet' as they are referred to.

579, I will bang on about negative gearing until the election, and beyond if this fool Bill gets in because his policy, if introduced, will be the biggest reform undertaken since the introduction of the GST because on the downside it has the potential to decimate the building and housing industries while on the upside it has a slim chance of saving money and increasing housing affordability.

Such a policy should only ever be considered when we are flying high and we are far from that.

As for Abbott's single handed destroying the liberal party, I disagree, he destroyed himself with his arrogance and own goals, but he did abolish the mining tax, he did abolish the carbon tax and HE DID STOP THE BOATS, some thing labor was totally incapable of. And he did so in just six months.

Ask yourself, where would we be right now, with near zero mining and thousands arriving illegally each year?

Also ask yourself, where could we have been if not for the Kevin 07 experiment?

Suse, "Mal needs to come right out and say what he really feels, and bring all the reasonable-minded Liberals with him." What, all three of them!

Butch, "We need a dictator of sorts" and who do you suggest? Mussolini got the trains running on time, my train was 30 minutes late yesterday. Should we all start learning Italian?

Butch, you always prattle on that the sky is falling, when in fact its not. Australia is still very much the "lucky country". like all we have our problems, but in general they can be overcome, as they have been in the past.

All the nonsense about the Labor and Liberal parties is superfluous, essentially their DNA is 99% the same, and in government they operate in very much a similar vain to each other. Mal and Bill remind me of a couple of those phony wrestlers of yesteryear, who climb into the ring and pretent to hate each others guts, but back stage are patting themselves on the back, and having a tinny or two together, "You sure fooled em' today Bill!"..."You too Mal, well done!"

I'm not complaining, I like most Australians have done well out of the system. In fact come this election my preference will go to the Liberal candidate, I like him more on social issues than the incumbent Labor bloke. No probs all's good.

Butch the scare monger, All that doom and gloom comes straight from Abbott's lie campaign.

So what have liberal achieved over the last 3 years. Abolished the mining tax and since then the mining has gone down hill. Not to mention that the mining tax never raised any money. So what was the point.

Abolition of the carbon price which left us 6 b $ worse off. And no drop in power prices.

Abbott destroying 30,000 car industry jobs. A remarkable achievement. They certainly have the score on the board.

100 B$ in more debt. Fantastic.

So why should people give liberal another go. So they can fully destroy medicare, Turn schools into paying concerns, Put 50 % on GsT, and close hospitals at 10 PM.

Abbott destroyed the Liberal party with his Campaign designed on lies, he would do anything to get power and he did. Mal will pay the penalty for Abbott

Rehctub you are too kind.

The only sight of Turnbull I will ever welcome is the sight of his back, complete with hat & coat, leaving the building for the last time.

It shows just how bad he is, when a Green would give him his preference rather than their sister ratbags, Labor.

I guess my vote for Labor this election will bring back equality. If we are gong to be ruled by ratbags it might as well be the originals, rather than a weak copy.

579, $50,000 PER WORKER, that's the number you should remember because that's the amount each worker on the floor was costing the tax payer within the car industry. So tell me, how was that a sustainable industry?

Suse,

"Mal needs to come right out and say what he really feels, and bring all the reasonable-minded Liberals with him. Surely the far-right crazies are not that powerful anymore?"

Lol!....Mal appears to be having a cracker of a time representing the "far-right crazies". Every move he makes, every breath he takes, is representative of the the far-right element of the LIbs.

The only reason he was allowed to boot Tones is that he agreed to continue the far-right IPA agenda.

Why can't you see that?

And even if you do think he's being held hostage by the LNP apparatus, how can you laud a bloke so lacking in principle that he'd sell his soul for the top job?

He either believes in far-right ethos - or he's a miserable unprincipled, do-anything elitist whose only ambition was to scrabble to the top.

And rehctub, tell me how largesse to big-business is going to help Australians get jobs?

"The investment bank once chaired by Malcolm Turnbull has backed the view that much of the benefit from the Coalition’s company tax cuts could flow to offshore investors..."

"...in an economic research note, Goldman Sachs found that if companies distributed the value of the tax cut as profits or dividends to investors then 60% of the benefit would flow to offshore investors, 10% to domestic investors and around 30% to the Australian economy."

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/01/goldman-sachs-analysis-of-company-tax-cut-finds-benefits-would-go-offshore?CMP=share_btn_tw

I'm sure Suse really enjoys the aspects of cuts to health and education when she knows the govt's prority is to funnel billions to offshore investors - great stuff!

What a shonky outfit is the LNP - whether it's led by Magnificent Mal or Shirtfront Tones.

There is no second prizes to be had. Abbott was a terrorist lying in wait, the citizens seen the danger in him and the rest is history.

Mal has done nothing, very disappointing, not even his ambitions for a second term. He is just letting time move bye.

So Mal is disillusioned, about what i can not remember, no mention of whatever it was that caused his disillusionment. I believe it to be instructions for an election from the far right faction. They did not want to take the budget to an election, after it had been explored is my guess.

Abbott started with a blistering start and now has faded into oblivion. The electorate has made up its mind on this one.

Hasbeen,

I am intrigued....

Why, when Mal has been bending over backwards to ambush health and education, hand big business tax cuts and basically continue with LNP far-right policy - are you so disapproving?

Apart from the chest-beating and flag-waving, he's almost identical to Abbott.

Sheesh! - we even had an AFP raid regarding the NBN during an election campaign!

Albeit, he's still waffling and not really saying anything except "jobs and growth" ad nauseam - his Treasurer is a blithering idiot - and now to appease their buddies, they're intimating they'll sort out super "after" the election...but...but why don't you like Mal? His govt is barely removed from Abbott's as far as policy is concerned.

Btw, rehctub, despite this govt cutting hundreds and hundreds of programs, slicing foreign aid, etc - its average level of spending over its term of govt has been equivalent to Labor's spending during the aftermath of the GFC - and only "then" was it at the present level.

With no GFC and no stimulus happening!

Why is that?

Hey everyone,
I need some good Aussie background music for this comment.
I'm going with Talking Heads 'Road To Nowhere' and 'Burning Down The House'.

I think we're is in a downward spiral and ultimately done for unless we radically change course, and although I truly do care about our future there's a voice in the back of my head saying 'Why bother, it wont make any difference anyway'.

I'd even go as far as saying that I don't think democracy is capable of saving us.

1/ The system we built isn't sustainable.
We cant have free base level healthcare and education without a system ensuring people are being productive to pay for it.
Welfare recipients vote for more welfare and politicians pander to them, the systems broken and was never built sustainably in the first place.

2/ Left wing craziness is our society collapsing under our feet.
Maybe democracy only works for so long and then society begins to implode from too much liberal ideals against backdrop of a divided multiculturalism.
There's no voice of sanity strong enough to silence the left wing nutters who will always attack and derail any sensible move forward.
University activists are spoilt rich kids who choose this craziness as the form they take to rebel against their parents - whilst living with them into their 30's and telling everyone else how to live.
They probably don't even pay their HECS debts or complete their studies anyway, too busy with left wing causes and activism.

3/ I believe in freedom and liberty for all but I don't think Islamic extremism can be dealt with through equality and democracy.
They laugh at our laws and only follow the word of Islam.
How can we assume to have a undivided nation under these conditions?
How do we fight against a divine entity when we promote equality and freedom of religion?
Islam will bring Terrorism; will bring a Police State, more costs to taxpayers, more regulation and diminished freedom on our streets.

You people are all living on hopes and dreams, and its time to be realistic.

[cont]
Even just 1 of these issues above would equate to our country having shaky foundations.
And with all 3, we face building collapse.

Armchair Critic,

" Left wing craziness is our society collapsing under our feet."

Au contraire....

It turns out that it's right-wing craziness that is the culprit.

"Austerity policies do more harm than good, IMF study concludes"

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/27/austerity-policies-do-more-harm-than-good-imf-study-concludes

"A strong warning that austerity policies can do more harm than good has been delivered by economists from the International Monetary Fund, in a critique of the neoliberal doctrine that has dominated economics for the past three decades. In an article seized on by the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, the IMF economists said rising inequality was bad for growth and that governments should use controls to cope with destabilising capital flows."

"The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries,” they said. “The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomise the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.­

“Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.­”

"The International Monetary Fund has summarised what a growing consensus among economists across the globe now think, that Osborne-style austerity economics increases inequality and instability, and undermines growth."

A capitalist consumer society depends on "growth" for survival. It's fairly obvious that if you remove the power of great swathes of society to spend and consume, you in turn nobble the system which has depended, post WWII, on conspicuous consumption to fuel growth.

I'm not so sure Armchair Critic that the coming Islamic take over of Oz will be such a bad thing. It will certainly cure many of our problems.

To start with, they are not too interested in giving anyone "sit-down" money, so they will probably fix the bludger element, perhaps even by beheading.

Womens lib will be a thing of the past, & they will definitely clean all the girls, teachers & students out of academia. That alone should fix the budget deficit. Get them out of high schools as well, & we'll have money to burn.

Prisons will no longer be a holiday camp for criminals, & the current slap on the wrist handed out by our new age judges will probably be carried out with a scimitar, rather than a powder puff.

Banning alcohol will probably mean a lot more kids get to eat regularly, & just think of all the money we'll save on razor blades.

I do suggest you convert to Islam before the take over, or you may not get the opportunity. You wouldn't want to lose your head over it, now would you.

Hey Poirot,
Thanks for your reply.
Let me break it down for you a little bit more so you fully understand what I mean.
Point 1 related to a sustainable financial system.
Point 2 related to the fabric of our social culture.
Point 3 related to religious stability (and compatibility)

So you're arguing a financial issue with a social one but I think they're separate issues.
The expense spoken about in regards to HECS debts isn't the source of the financial problem, though it is a mismanaged burden on the taxpayer.

Our system (democracy) is one where welfare can potentially keep voting for a better deal until they become the majority.
If our politicians pander to those voters for their votes then there is nothing to stop the system eventually imploding and the austerity you mentioned will become inevitable.
The only thing that could stop it is if every worker or taxpayer went on strike and ground the country to a halt to force a change.

The systems not built right to begin with.
It has the seeds of its own destruction built in.

What do we need debt for anyway?
We have money coming in frequently and we have money going out frequently.
If politicians cant figure it out and get it right then they shouldn't be in the job.
The only reasonable explanation for this failure is incompetence, and we allow it.
The systems not built right.

Sadly Has been you are probably right. I mean how else would we see an end to the entitlement brigade, Tony Abbott tried, and look where that got him.

Yes it's all very sad about Abbott, wanting to take us in the direction of Singapore. I don't know if we need ghettos on the outskirts of town.

That is what the populace through their public opinion against and that is where it got Abbott.

At least we keep unemployment figures, which is a gauge of where we are as a society.

Butch I am not in your way of thinking and neither is the majority of Australians.

The sarcastic mockery of Islam by Hassy, and the agreement of Butch, indicates that rather than being opposed to that ridiculous extremism they in fact deep down hold similar ridiculous opinions about people. Anyone who is not them, they disapprove of, and believe society should exact retribution on these inferior beings, just like extreme Islam believes.

nice try Paul, but may I suggest you stick to the facts, and the fact is you know damn well I despise Islam but the reality is, we either make some tough choices now, or leave the mess we have created for future generations.

579, are you referring to the same Singapore that has zero crime and everyone does something or they go without.

People who choose not to contribute should be given the absolute bare minimum and not an iota more.

Even those without work can contribute because what is wrong with being a job seeker, wearing a shirt that says something like, looking for work, Interested, phone ......, then go along and collect the rubbish that nobody collects. They would soon find a job. Many don't want to and we are stupid enough to allow this. Go figure!

But the reality is its far easier to shack up with some bird, pump out a few money makers, then sit back and enjoy their Centrelink funded plasma. In fact, the latest trend is to claim separation and two lots of single parent allowances. It's the latest trend among scum bags.

As I said to Paul, the easiest alternative is to say 'she'll be right mate', we will just keep the gravy train running and let future generations deal with our mess.

Have either of you two ever considered where we might be had the Kevin 07 experiment not occurred?

Abbott's predecessor left a booming economy, then he inherited a basket case, then, when he tried to put the brakes on, he was shunned.

Typical of people whos lives are provided for them, when all they have to do is turn up. Try putting yourselves in the shoes of a creator for once, rather than a taker.

What's this kevin experiment. Explain yourself Butch. Singapore is a dictator govt; and that is what Abbott was all about. That was his hidden agenda. If that is what he was on about why didn't he tell us that. All we got was lies.

Mal doesn't need a senate to ruin his budget it's all in the paper work that we were not informed about. Changes to super are falling apart it affects everybody not the top 4 %.

I don't think Morrison is much of an accountant, seems to make a lot of mistakes. Now he is declaring war, and so is Mal. That must have been the latest pep talk.

Your in for a torrid time, best get used of it.

Butch, I didn't say you don't despise extreme Islam, but that is not to say your view of society is not somewhat similar. They may be more radical and more brutal in their methods, but the final outcome is the same.

Example Hasbeen said " To start with, they (extreme Islam) are not too interested in giving anyone "sit-down" money, so they will probably fix the bludger element, perhaps even by beheading."

You may not agree with their extreme method (beheading) but you agree with the outcome. The perceived bludger element has been dealt with. It is possible to hate people, yet be very much like those people in what you believe.
A good example is, following the American Civil War the biggest haters of black people, were poor whites who were socially and economically like the black people. Or the religious hatred of the past of Protestants, not by atheists, but by Catholics, people with similar views.

Hasbeen,
Just wanted to say that was an awesome comment.
I really hope that the push to limit speech doesn't end up infringing on our sense of humor.

Paul1405,
I don't know about the other guys, but I genuinely don't want to exact retribution on anyone. I'd prefer to avoid dealing with this can of worms issue completely if I could but it's not going to go away, it will only get worse. So there's no point sticking our heads in the sand and avoiding it.

Just remember the reason we put locks on our homes is because we love the people inside, not because we hate everyone else.
Its not about racism or religion or anything else.
Its simply because I want my country to be the best it can be for the people who reside in it.

Rehctub,
A lot of people aren't turning up for life at all, that's part of the problem.
Maybe education isn't as good as they portray it to be, if it was people wouldn't see easily fall between the cracks in life.
I blame the system just as much as the people, after all they are just products of that system.

One thing I forgot and wanted to mention, was the idea of particular issues that democracy and equality cannot fix.
It'd be a good title for an forum topic.
For example democracy can't fix or deal with the problem of Islamic Extremism because we have freedom of religion.
We need to have a good, close look at all of the issues where democracy works against us and leaves our hands tied to deal with a particular social or national issue.

rehctub,

But Abbott didn't put the brakes on. He was booted because he was an incompetent embarrassment to the govt.

Spending as a percentage of the GDP by the Abbott and Turnbull govts, despite cutting hundreds and hundreds of programs and funding in general, is right up there approaching Labor's spending at the height of their GFC stimulus spending.

Labor:

2008-09 - 25.6%
2009-10 - 26.0%
2010-11 - 24.5%
2011-12 - 24.9%
2012-13 - 24.1%

Coalition:

2013-14 - 25.6%
2014-15 - 25.6%
2015-16 - 25.8%
2016-17 - 25.8%

And projected Coalition budgets into the future track the same.

Again I ask, why, when the Coalition has cut so much and attempting to cut some more, is spending in the same vicinity as Labor's when it was delivering a recession-avoiding stimulus?

.....

Suse,

You'll be disappointed to read this:

Election 2016: Malcolm Turnbull captured headlining fundraiser at Cory Bernardi's conservative foundation

"The CLF's shop boast an array of Cory Bernardi merchandise, including "Hardcore Conservative" T-shirts and the senator's five books. His most recent is The Conservative Revolution, in which Senator Bernardi labelled women who have abortions as "abhorrent and pro-death."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-malcolm-turnbull-captured-headlining-fundraiser-at-cory-bernardis-conservative-foundation-20160602-gpaekk.html

Poirot, of cause there is another angle at which to view your information, that being that Labor (Kevin 07) was left with money in the bank and ZERO DEBT, yet still spent so much and achieved so little.

While I accept Tony kicked a few 'own goals' his predecessor did leave a great set of numbers, and Tony inherited a basket case. Happy to be proven wrong though Poirot.
given you are a good collector of data, perhaps you can do the math again but separating the interest on labors debt, along with the the pre committed spending left behind by labor, then we would have a much clearer picture.

It would certainly be a far more transparent way to look at it, don't you think. I am sure those on this forum would appreciate the effort as well.

I will look forward to your numbers Poirot.

No you don't, rehctub,

Since when is 10% debt to GDP a "basket case".

If that's a basket case, then what are the Abbott/Turnbull govt's figures telling us...their debt is approaching 17%.

With no GFC - and no stimulus.

Reminding you that Costello in the boom times left a piddling amount in the coffers, being more interested in pork barrelling tax cuts and leaving us with all the structural problems we have now.

You harp on and on about a debt that saved us from recession, even though evidence has been presented to you time and time again that those industrial economies who opted for austerity during the GFC ended up with debt anywhere between 40% and 100% - some with much more.

If we include the financial years 2008-09 and 2009-10 as those encompassing Labor's GFC stimulus:

Government spending during the GFC was 25.5% of GDP.

Government spending now is 25.8% of GDP

How is that?

Labor's 2012-13 spending was 24.1%

Regarding "pre-committed spending":

Would that include things like Gonski - which prior to the 2013 election, the Coalition assured us they were on a ticket with?

They promptly dumped the overall agreement - like everything else they promised, cut savagely everything they could without having to go through parliament, gave nearly $9 billion to the RBA which it didn't want, need or ask for, etc....

The above are only a few of the examples of this rabidly incompetent outfit.

And still Coalition spending is 25.8% of GDP.

That is the very same man . Bill. and the one you supported for doing the right thing. Thuggery doesn’t wash with the public. Employers need strong supervision or else they get out of hand, nothing new there.
Coles being a publically listed company does not prevent fraud or any other illegal activity.
Howard sold everything that he could get and for a fire-sale price. Then built a railway to no where.
Abbott’s basket case was invented between him and Hockey, but all that was forgotten about when Abbott was under pressure.
The company tax drop is a dud Jobs and growth from this is only in Turnbulls head. One lot says the extra money will go overseas. The other says the modeling was done on wishful thinking.
The changes to super is incorrect and will not happen.

You guys know I'm not that savvy with financial stuff.

They are always mentioning % of GDP, (I wish they would just tell us the exact figure, down to the dollar, they could also tell us how much they paid off each time) but is it really a good indicator of anything without knowing the profitability of that gross domestic product.
For example the car industry?

What would the % be in it was compared to gross domestic profit?
Why do these numbers even matter when those same big companies that make up the bulk of the market don't even pay tax?
Isn't debt relative to the money the government actually receives, not how much companies that don't pay tax produce?

Why is debt compared to GDP when many of those producers don't pay tax?

Armchair Critic,

"Isn't debt relative to the money the government actually receives.."

Yes, that why it's given as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

However if you want me to give you a dollar figure for the difference between Labor's 10% debt to GDP (2013) and the present govt's debt to GDP of around 17%...

Gross debt in 2013 was $279 billion.

After nearly three years of Coalition govt, it's now around $430 billion - with no Global Financial Crisis or stimulus spending.

The problems related to debt are directly related to a country's ability to pay for the luxury. Japan, for instance has a worse debt to GDP than Greece (175%). Japan's is 229% of GDP, but has the ability to carry it. Germany's is around 70%. Britain's around 90%, etc....

As a comparison, Australia's is around 17%

Poirot, of that $430 billion in debt we have now, how much of that debt was due to interest paid on labors borrowings, and pre committed spending?

Furthermore, while I accept the current government has not had a GFC to deal with, and has not provided the stimulus, they have also not had the luxury of a huge mining boom.

So considering all things equal, to do the comparison we need to star with a zero debt balance as at 07, calculate the gross earnings, then the spending (borrowings) to come up with a true figure of where they started and finished.

You then take where the coalition started from, factor in their gross earnings, then the pre commitments that they could not avoid, then subtract their net borrowings to come up with a true comparison.

Hope you can provide this as it would provide a much clearer picture.

rehctub,

You do see, don't you?

You pull out all the variables to defend this govt's ramping up of debt - yet you always completely dismiss the GFC when you're bagging Labor's governance.

You do realise that our handling of the aftermath of the GFC is lauded worldwide. Yes, we ran up debt (small debt by world standards)...but we were one of the few industrial economies to have avoided recession. If we'd gone into recession, our "debt" would have been much much larger.

I'll stop so fulsomely reminding you of this govt's woeful performance if you at least acknowledge the reason for Labor's debt - and stop acting as if it was merely run up for the fun of it.

You can look up the answer for all of that yourself. How much forward spending did Howard leave for labor.

There was no mining boom. The only boom was in quantity not money. There is no money boom in any of the figures. The profits were given to Singapore.
All mining ever done for the East was rob the states of workers. Now those people have returned and our GDP has never been bigger.

Like all Abbott worshipers you have lost it big time and come up with anything to try and save face.

rehctub,

Furthermore...

Care to explain why private business investment has collapsed under the Coalition?

"Australian Bureau of Statistics data released over the past few days shed a stark light on private sector business investment and company profit trends over the past few years. It shows that rather than being anti-business, investment and profits boomed under Labor, and rather than being pro-business, they have collapsed under the Coalition."

"In the two and a half years since the 2013 election, company profits have fallen 11% to their lowest level since 2010. This has occurred with the global economy registering decent growth and interest rates at record lows. In the six years of Labor government to 2013, company profits rose 28% despite the global financial crisis which plunged the world economy into a deep recession.

On business investment, the credentials of both sides of politics are even more extreme. Since the September 2013 election, private sector capital expenditure has fallen a thumping 26% and the outlook for the next year is for a further fall of between 5% and 10%. The fall in business investment is set to be more severe than during the early 1990s recession.

Under the previous Labor government, business investment rose a robust 67% to reach a record high proportion of GDP. It seems the policy settings which included the carbon price and mining tax did nothing to discourage the private sector from going out and investing."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/04/the-anti-business-labor-hyperbole-wrong-just-look-at-the-facts?CMP=share_btn_tw

So much for the govt's line about Labor being anti-business.

Poirot, one of the finer achievements of the Labor Governments term in office was their handling of the GFC, their approach has been proven to be spot on. The conservative opposition were demanding a 1930's style austerity program of belt tightening and expenditure cuts In time of financial crises/ Those that are willing to take the risk of increased spending to boost the economy and therefore maintain employment levels, generally weather the storm better than the alternative. There is also the philosophical aspect that the people need protection in times of hardship, something the conservatives give little if any regard to, simply relying on the dysfunctional free market to right itself eventually, which invariably results in a longer and deeper recession/depression than otherwise need be. But then for the conservatives with their approach it is mainly the ordinary people and small business that suffer the most and not their backers in big business.

There is little doubt we are headed for another recession, much larger than would have occurred back in 08. There is no doubt that if/when this recession hits it will be extremely hurtful and there won't be too many sectors that avoid it.

Perhaps 2008 was the recession we should have had but I know im a bit of a lone wolf with that train of thought.

As for labor's spending, there spending/borrowing was not the problem, its the lack of outcomes that has caused so much damage.

Now they are asking us to trust them again.

Dear rehctub,

I'm not sure how you manage to hold positions which fly in the face of facts and commonsense.

For instance removing negative gearing from existing housing is suppose to decimate the building sector how?

How about you take a step back and reassess your take on these things? A fresh perspective might find you ending up with a different set of priorities.

For me the government giving up on manufacturing in this country has been unforgivable. Germany recently put a billion dollars toward electric cars. We could have done the same in this country and shifted so many established car component businesses into the new economy. Instead the coalition threw the towel in.

While manufacturing was certainly stagnating what it needed was forward thinking rather than slash and burn neo-capitalist ideologues wrecking the place. i don't class Malcolm as one of them but the coalition as a whole most certainly is. This is where anger should be directed in my opinion

Dea Steel, I will come back to your negative gearing question.

As for manufacturing, do you have any comparisons in the number of vehicles produced between Germany and Australia?

The problem with our car industry is that our wages and conditions for relatively low skilled floor workers are ridiculous, especially the conditions side.

Secondly, I have heard we were subsidizing the industry to the tune of $50,000 per worker, which at the time was far more than many workers in regular jobs were paid, so do you think this was sustainable?

Thirdly, thanks to RUDD/GILLARD we had no money.

As for electric cars, having the cars is one thing, selling them to the people is a whole new deal.

NG
I will continue this as a separate post.

Steel, you asked me why I feel negative gearing remove on old homes will decimate the industry, here are my thoughts.

Firstly, in order to NG a home, it must have a large debt to value ration, usually at least 80%.

Given the median house price has now broken into the 600's in Brisbane, in order to buy a $600K home as an investment, rent it out for $30,000 and not have it geared, the deposit required will be about half, or $300,000.

That's not going to happen.

So the alternative is to buy new.

While that may seem fine, what is the value of that new home once it's used? Remembering, if you wish to sell it to an investor they will need 50% deposit, and very few have that.

So given the fact that the only way to NG will be new, fewer will take the risk because there will be very few buyers out there the buy it a second time.

So, if one is forced to buy second hand with after tax dollars, they might as well use those dollars to pay down their existing, non tax deductable, mortgagee,

This will ultimately result in fewer homes being built due mainly to the unknown values once used.

rehctub,

"Thirdly, thanks to RUDD/GILLARD we had no money."

May I remind you what you said on the last page:

"As for labor's spending, there spending/borrowing was not the problem, its the lack of outcomes that has caused so much damage."

Make up your mind.

Here's how ABBOTT/TURNBULL have made things much much worse - with the added excitement of two dud Treasurers in a row.

"From the time of the last election:

Net debt was: $175 billion
Net debt now: $274 billion

Gross debt was: $273 billion
Gross debt now: $430 billion

Net debt to GDP was: 10%
Net debt to GDP now: 16.9%

Wages growth was: 2.6%
Wages growth now: 2.3%

Govt spending was: 24.1% of GDP
Govt spending now: 25.8% of GDP

Unemployment was: 5.6%
Unemployment now: 6.0%

What, prey tell, are the "outcomes" from that? Private business investment has collapsed. Company profits have fallen 11%. Private sector capital expenditure has fallen a thumping 26%.

If you're searching for an anti-business govt, don't look much further - we've got one at the moment.

Steel another trend that could we be effected is where people buy their first home, 'a stepping stone of sorts' which they latter rent out to buy their next, usually an upgrade.

The problem with this policy is that the older one can no longer be negatively geared, so the new one will be put on hold.

While I am the first to admit that my thoughts are only predictions, my concern is that given the building industry is one of the few going well at present, why would anyone want to risk that sector.

Poirot, how much of the libs spending is paying for labors debt?

rehctub,

How thick are you?

I mean, how many times do you have to be reminded that Australia's debt by world standards is very small...it was significantly smaller when Labor left office.

How many times do you have to be reminded that if the LNP had been in govt during the aftermath of the GFC and advised by people like yourself, we would have gone into recession and our debt would have been huge.

Mr Abbott and his cohorts got themselves elected touting the line of a debt and deficit disaster...which was complete and utter bollocks.

The fact that the Coalition have heaped on the debt since is obvious. Their "debt and deficit disaster" crap is nowhere to be seen these days...because they have moved us to a much worse position.

I realise from your narrative that you would have much preferred a GFC recession - that much is obvious.

Your complete failure to recognise the genius of an early and powerful stimulus as Australia's saviour during that time is evidence enough of your economic ignorance.

What have you got to say about the damage this govt has wrought on business confidence in Australia since the Coalition came to power.?

.*it was significantly smaller when Labor left office.*

It was zero when Howard/Costello left office.

*we would have gone into recession and our debt would have been huge.*

Well no, as the mining boom and mining investment boom protected us from the GFC, despite the Labor Govt. Costellos appointment of a suitable banking regulator, also protected our banks, unlike US banks.

*because they have moved us to a much worse position.*

They have had to undo some of the damage caused by the last Labor Govt, who forgot that the mining boom would end. So forgot to reach trade agreements so that our other industries might export, who banned live exports for a time and nearly wrecked the Northern cattle industry. The list goes on.

Turnbull is doing what the last Labor Govt should have done, like encouraging innovation and new start ups, but the reward for that will take some years to show. Labor refuses to address the fact that we have some of the world's cushiest bells and whistles enforced by their so called fair work commission, which if we want to compete globally, are frankly a joke and a great way of encouraging employers to invest elsewhere. This is what happens when trade union leaders try to run a country.

With some due respect, Yabby, that's a load of cobblers.

This mob have no idea what they're doing.

Perhaps you can explain the woeful figures and the collapse in business confidence in a way that doesn't put this bunch of economic numbskulls in the forefront?

Tell us how a $50 billion gift to big business is going to trickle down and save us all.

0.6% growth over twenty years to the economy...Wow!

60% of it going offshore to overseas investors...Wow!

Morrison so desperate he's pulled out the "war rhetoric".

Pathetic....

Yabby,

Oh so it's the Labor govt who forgot the mining boom would end?

I thought that was Costello's big one.

Merrily he went along pork barreling for all he was worth...giving us the new meme of 'middle-class welfare' - whom he and Howard rebadged 'battlers'.

Costello's legacy is the structural problem we're left with now that the boom has ended. They sold off assets and gold reserves like a perpetual fire sale and passed on Fraser's debt from when Johnny Howard was his Treasuer to Labor - that's what they did.

Costello left a piddling amount in coffers considering the economic mores of the time.

I did catch Marvellous Mal touting his Start-ups the other day...apparently all the gleeful young fellas there to get in on the act were fresh from the young Libs stable.

Ok Poirot, do you think we can avoid a recession in the not too distant future, if not, how do you think we will cope now that so many owe so much more, having been encouraged to borrow on false promises. Do you remember Rudds $21K first home owner grant. Many who took that up are now in the same spot they were, about to fold, only they now owe hundreds of thousands and if Bill has his way, their home values will fall.

However, had Rudd not opened the flood gates to illegals, or had he actually stimulated the economy with brilliance, not waste-able cash, and had he realised his limited abilities and actually listened to industry experts, we would be in much better shape.

The insulation scheme had some merit, but the implementation was what turned it into a basket case.

But the doozy of all doozies was by far the removal of Howards border protection laws, laws that saw Rudd inherit about three detainees, while Abbott was left with thousands.

So, go and do your math Poirot, but don't forget to add the interest on labors debt, the costs associated with not only stopping the boats, but managing the debacle Rudd caused, the unfunded dreams left behind by Gillard, the wasted billions on other brain fart ideas labor came up with, then we can compare apples with apples. But until you do this you are simply wasting our time.

BTW, those middle class welfare recipients you despise are the same ones who contribute to the needs of those who don't, either due to uncontrollable circumstances, or lack of interest for which they get away with.

Even when Tony Abbott did try to curb the welfare waste he was shot down. How typical I say!

As for business confidence, the constant threat of IR reform from Labor and the unions takes its toll. A point in case being Bills apparent backflip on the FWC ruling, should he not like it.

Continued

Just to clarify...

http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2024-labor-or-liberal-government-debt

"Debt" referred to was that which was inherited by the Coalition in 1996 was left over from Fraser's govt - 42% of it.

Got a bit ahead of myself when referencing the great Johnny Howard - and his most profligate govt!

A few lines from the article on economic competence - or not.

"Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle.

Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government.

So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983."

Dear rehctub,

You have split the two issues but let me explain why I think they are very much linked.

First however allow me to make this point. In 2011 Forbes did an article which asked the question why was Germany able to produce twice as many cars as the US while paying their workers twice as much. The answers are in the link below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/#116f16e4289f

If we had strong political, industrial and union leadership this may well have been Australia's future. It's not and that is a great shame.

You say we were subsidising car industry workers $50,000 per year. From my memory it wasn't that high but it was still a substantial figure. However that was when the dollar was equal to $1.10 US due to a mining boom everyone knew had to end sometime. It is now at $0.74. The cost to produce a car here compared to the US dropped 30%. My contention is this exchange rate would have seen manufacturers return to profitability.

Here is where the two are linked. Negative gearing, which is very much an anomaly in the OECD, cost Australians who don't negatively gear over $300 for every man, woman and child. It is a subsidy which outstrips that given to the car industry.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/election-2016-what-negative-gearing-costs-other-taxpayers-310-per-year-20160513-goubz7.html

Now I have no problem with you making the case that this subsidy is maintaining employment but what I am challenging is your inconsistency.

I contend that a subsidy to the car industry is more appropriate sector to subsidise as the beneficiaries were lower paid workers rather than the proportionally higher numbers of the well off who claim the greatest benefit from this housing subsidy.

Cont..

Continued for Poirot
There is little that effects business more than the constant threat of a labor government, driven by union thugs with an agenda focussed on IR laws, laws they feel should protect the rights of workers above all else.

What they fail to recognize is that times change, however, rather than allowing business to adjust with the times, the Labor/union alliance expects every worker to earn more each year regardless of the economic times, where as wages should be like all other costs, being allowed to fluctuate with the times.

Deal are done with financiers, landlords, even government departments, yet labor and the unions wont budge.

Labor and the union movement have caused so much anguish now as so many workers today are either casual, or on contract, in fact, it is so bad that many serial dole bludgers wont take a short term job for fear of not being able to get back on the tit.

My thoughts on the recent downturn is due to the failure of Malcom Turnbull as there is little doubt he has been regarded by many as a dud.

He has all but lost the unlosable election to a guy that would have withdrawn had he faced a leader like Howard or Hawlk.

So this is why I feel business confidence has taken a dive and, should labor get back in I doubt you will see it return for a long long time.

Wages and conditions must be able to move, and not just up.

Cont..

As to sales of electric cars preorders for the yet to be built Tesla model went through the roof, over 5 times the best predictions. The desire for electric cars is here to stay and sadly we are missing the bandwagon thanks primarily to the Abbott government.
http://gizmodo.com/teslas-model-3-preorders-are-way-bigger-than-anyone-exp-1768837959

Back to housing. Recently my wife and one of my children each bought house and land packages in a urban revitalisation project near us. They had done their sums and if they get the average rent in the area it will cover the repayments. Neither intend or expect to have to negatively gear. This to me is smart investing and it doesn't require any subsidy from other Australians. We have friends who have purchased existing homes in more affluent suburbs where the insane house prices means there is no chance of the rent coming anywhere near the repayments so the will be negative gearing. Why should my wife and daughter have to subsidise that decision?

rehctub,

While you're banging on about asylum seekers - which you incorrectly refer to as "illegals" - (as does Mr Morrison and Mr Dutton - sadists of renown)

Can you explain to me the brilliant economic strategy of locking these people up in offshore detention - and simultaneously "not" processing them?

Here we have a situation where the ADF is now turning boats around and those they miss get sent back the minute they get anywhere near us...so the flow is ostensibly stopped.

But we have a situation where this brain-box of a govt decides they prefer to let those who made it rot on in these "camps".

These gulags cost $1.2 billion a year to operate.

So the upshot is that even though the boats have been stopped - for some reason this govt thinks it's a great idea to fork out $1.2 billion per annum to not process those already detained.

Because they are economically incompetent - that's why.

Poirot, Costello not only paid off past debt, he also paid 50$billion into the Future Fund, which now is worth 117 billion. Then he returned some tax to the people who had paid it, which is as things should be.
The rot set in when Labor invented new super mining taxes and started spending that money, before even a cent even came in the door. The price of iron ore and coal were highest under Labor, so they could have saved some, but chose to waste it with you beaut schemes.

Labor had 6 years to do something about diversifying our economy, they did nothing other than assist their union mates, as trade union leaders don't know how an economy works, they just know how to spend other peoples money.

The 900 people held in detension are free to go home if they wish. Keeping them there is far cheaper than the billions cost of dealing with an ever growing tide of boats as it was at one time. Just ask the EU what they are spending.

Yabby,

It's pretty well established now that the Howard/Costello govt was (twice) found to be one of the most profligate govt's in Australia's history. Costello sprayed much of his boom up against a wall - that is also a standard view.

There was little reform...and a whole lot of pork barreling.

We have to go back to Keating for any semblance of reform.

Costello was made to look much better than he was, because of the fortunate economic times over which he presided.

Left a paltry $50 billion in the coffers - and spent like a drunken sailor to garner votes.

You're another who ignores the GFC....thank god it didn't occur under a Coalition watch!

SteeleRedux, "Recently my wife and one of my children each bought house and land packages in a urban revitalisation project near us. They had done their sums and if they get the average rent in the area it will cover the repayments"

Gosh, 'smart investing' in rental property is that simple, eh?

It is just storytelling isn't it? LOL

Poirot, Costello saved us from the GFC, by having appointed a tough banking regulator previously, unlike American banks. He continued on with Keatings reforms, so the economy boomed.

Fortunately he not only paid off Govt debt, left a surplus budget and established the Future Fund, he returned the rest to taxpayers. Leaving any more for the next Labor Govt to pee up against the wall on yet another failure, would have been foolish.

Things like deregulating our wharves from the control of militant unions, were good for our economy, but not something that Labor would even dream of doing. Free trade agreements with the USA, were something we urgently needed, another big boost to our economy.

All Mr Swan had to do was sit on Costellos old chair and everything was in place for him to benefit from the work that had been done.

Australia sailed through the GFC, as our banks were healthy and the mining boom did the rest. Nothing to do with Labor, they just got the credit from those who don't understand how the whole thing works. Fair enough, as a housewife that is maybe not your strong point :)

Yar...Yabby,

Sure about that?

"Macquarie boss Nick Moore used both to full effect last week when he issued a dire warning to David Murray, the man heading the inquiry into the future of Australia's financial system.

Think twice about imposing new regulations on our banks to protect taxpayers from a collapse, Moore warned. Such regulations could backfire and cost the nation dearly"

"Missing was any hint of the frantic desperation of six years ago as Macquarie careered out of control, under siege from an army of steely eyed traders betting the bank would go down.

The panic took hold just a few hours after the collapse of Lehman Bros on September 15, 2008. What did Moore and his executives do? They went begging for help.

Freedom of Information requests by Sydney Morning Herald reporter Michael Evans and your correspondent back in 2010 uncovered a deluge of emails to federal government ministers, Treasury officials and the corporate regulator that began almost immediately after Lehmans imploded."

"What we do know is that the pleadings were devilishly effective. Within days, the government shored up offshore Australian bank debt with a taxpayer guarantee. And the corporate regulator banned short selling of Australian banks, a move that staved off the short selling attack.

Macquarie was saved. And so began the myth that the Australian financial system somehow was better and stronger than the rest of the world, that it alone survived the great global financial crisis where all others failed.

It is a myth now being employed as a dangerous argument as to why Australian banks should not be subjected to the kind of controls now being considered by global regulators.

David Murray, the former longstanding boss of the Commonwealth Bank, has been examining ways of shoring up the system in the event of a repeat of the 2008 financial system meltdown."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-20/verrender-debunking-the-great-australian-banking-myth/5825466

Err Poirot, Maquarie are of course largely a so called investment bank, rather than a deposit taking retail bank, there is a huge difference.

If you check your history, you will find that after HIH collapsed, there was a large investigation. Costello overhauled APRA, increased its funding and appointed John Laker to run it. Laker did an amazing job, even though our banks were not keen on the increased regulation.

For a complete explanation of our banks and the GFC, here you go:

http://www.afr.com/news/how-australias-banks-dodged-the-crisis-20091220-iw96e

Steel, to buy a $200,000 house will cost about $250 per week, borrowing at 5% and allowing $2500 per year for rates and maint.

Now while that may seem like a brilliant idea, the reality is that not too many people wish to live in areas like that, due mainly to circumstances like lack of work, no cafes and little in the way of conveniences, so while I accept these houses are out there, you are not comparing apples with apples my friend.

However, one thing you have identified, albeit by default, is that there is such a thing as affordable housing, so well done for that one.

In the mean time, may I suggest you rent your houses to the likes of pensioners, because the new laws state that if there is no work in regional areas, then younger ones have to move to where work can be found, or be cut off. I'm guessing its in at attempt to stop the three generations of dole bludgers from residing in the one far away sh1t hole collecting thousands a week for nothing. That privilege seems to be reserved for other certain folk, but I won't mention them for fear of being called racist.

Poirot, as Yabby says, these illegals, and they are illegals because it is illegal to enter Australia without a visa, are welcome to either return home, or move on. No one is forcing them to stay. Besides, they have passed other countries to get here, so either they did not try to enter there, or they were moved on. I guess you can't blame them because to come here with our piss weak welfare laws would be like winning the lotto for them.

So, when you do your recalculation, if you dare, don't forget to include the money spent on turning them around, on keeping them in detention and on processing them, especially the money spent on reducing the thousands left by Rudd that are now gone,because every red cent is money that was not needed until we undertook the failed Kevin 07 experiment.

Yabby,

I take your point about the increased regulation and our banks being in a better position than banks overseas.

However, the govt took steps to make sure confidence wasn't undermined at the time. The crisis was so severe that that sort of measure was called for - the govt acted.

"On Sunday the 12th of October, the Australian Government announced it would guarantee all Australian bank deposits and, for a fee, the wholesale funding of Australia's banks.

This was the first time such actions had been taken in Australia's history.

While the Australian banking system was in good shape — as at mid-October 2008, Australia's four largest banking groups were among only 10 that were rated AA or higher by Standard & Poor's — the Government acted to ensure the stability of the Australian financial system and secure flows of credit to the economy. Because other governments had guaranteed the borrowings of their banks, Australian banks were being put at a competitive disadvantage despite being in better shape than were their international competitors. There were also emerging signs of fragility among Australia's second-tier or smaller banks.

These financial stability measures effectively involved the Government taking on risk to ease consumer and business concerns about the financial sector and more broadly economic conditions. In this highly volatile and risk-averse environment where there was the potential for disorderly and irrational behaviour, it was essential that governments calmed the situation by temporarily taking on private sector risk."

http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Newsroom/Speeches/2009/Australias-response-to-the-global-financial-crisis

Plus all the other stimulus measures.

Attempting to overlook Labor's excellent handling of such a serious crisis - and say it was all Costello's regulatory nous is simplistic in the extreme.

(Btw, unfortunately, couldn't read that article as it's paywallled)

P.S. you forgot to include your obligatory personal putdown in your last post...tch, tch.

Poirot, it is a shame that you can't read the AFR article, for it explains the whole thing in detail, including the Govt guarantee. Yes the Govt provided a guarantee as global markets were nervous about any banks, given that so many EU and US banks were in trouble. That was of course easy to do, because our banks were in such good shape in the first place! So nothing amazing there by Labor and it earned them a cool 1.5 billion, with little risk, never costing them a cent.

Costello deserves credit, because he increased regulation and appointed Laker, who did a great job, well before the GFC. This at a time when there was pressure for more deregulation, as George Bush turned the US regulator into a toothless fairy and EU regulations were pretty slack, which is why the GFC happened in the first place.

Had Costello followed the global herd and done what they did, then we might really have had a mess on our hands. As it turned out, Labor got it easy, handed to them on a plate, by Costellos previous action and for that he deserves credit

Dear rehctub,

$230,000 for a brand new 6 star energy rated 3 bed-roomed house, raised ceilings in the living area and a built in garage. An expected rent of $310 to $330 and within 45 minutes train ride to the Melbourne CBD. The area is the focus of a revitalisation project by the state government where sizable number of the rundown large housing commission blocks were split into 3 titles. The land is markedly cheaper, no stamp duty on the house, and only three building companies chosen out of those who tendered so economies of scale are realised. While you and I might bemoan the lack of a big front yard there is still plenty of space in the rear, although this generation don't seem as into gardens as ours was.

There is a new school, new childcare facilities, a new medical centre and a host of other civic improvements.

Is there a risk this will not work, that the turnaround in the suburb not be realised? Of course. Few investments are risk free. But that is why you do your research. Many don't.

You still haven't answered my question though.

Why should other Australians subsidise those who instead pay inflated prices for existing houses, well above the expected returns, who are banking on the increase in capital gain on the property. You and I have both owned businesses. Would you ever purchase a going concern knowing you would be making a loss over the next 10 years in the hope you would get more than what you paid for it plus inflation? No. Would you expect the government to finance such an investment? No. So why do you make an exception for a housing bubble?

Now I'm willing to see a subsidy to produce a social good. Providing new housing stock and work for our building sector could be argued is a social good. Extending that subsidy for existing purchases is not.

Come on mate, you think a bit about issues and normally take a fairly hardnosed practical approach. Why the seeming blind spot on this one?

Stel, firstly, the majority of businesses purchased are leasehold, whereas houses are freehold, and there in lies the difference.

Name me a property that was purchased 15 years ago that has not increased in value, especially if purchased diligently as you alert to.

While I on the one had accept part of your argument about sub subsidising older homes, how many older homes are sold then replaced with new ones?
How many will still be sold if PAYG investors can not buy them?

How many first homes will no longer be rented then replaced with new homes, known as upgrading?

The major flaw in the NG policy is the unknown value of the old home once it is no longer new.

rehctub,

Negative gearing is principally a strategy for reducing taxable income.

That is well known.

If you wish t invest in property and make a profit from the real estate market - then by all means go ahead. You shouldn't expect to ride on the backs of other tax payers who don't wish to do so.

Exactly the same principal for those business people, who bought businesses knowing full well that would be paying penalty rates. They invested knowing that. It's not something that was dropped on them as a surprise.

I'm sick of hearing you whinge about leaners, when simultaneously you pull out all stops to defend the leaning of investors - and then insult our intelligence by telling us it's for the good of housing stock.

Dear rehctub,

Regardless whether something is leasehold or freehold they are both investments. On one of my businesses I was able to get more than 10 times what I had purchased it for 7 years earlier. It took a lot of hard work, and the first year was pretty touch and go, but it was an investment of time and money I was prepared to make. I both manufactured and provided services, employing people within the business and providing work for subcontractors. We made a loss in the first year and that was it.

Those who take purchase existing houses at inflated prices, with returns well under costs just to take a punt on rising house prices, make losses year after year after year. What they expect the rest of us to do is to subsidise those losses and to back their punt. I don't want to any more, particularly as the only people employed are generally real estate agents and conveyancors for a short period.

As I said I am open to subsidising an increase in housing stock and the employment produced because of the social good it provides but not anything else. If an existing old and rundown house is torn down and new dwellings erected in its place I am still okay with providing subsidising as both factors are at play. I'm not so sure about funding the replacement of an older house with a single new one since there has been no increase in overall dwellings though it does at least provide work for the sector.

As to the sale of once new buildings to the next investor I feel if the house is maintained and rents hold firm against repayments then it should be attractive to both an investor and a first time buyer. We shouldn't have to spruik a property by saying 'come and buy my loss making investment because you can deduct those losses on your tax'.

There is a number of issues I have with Labour this election but their approach to negative gearing is not one of them.

Steel, do you honestly think an investor is going to buy a property that has been negatively geared, that can no long attract that deduction for the fun of it. No, they won't.

If a person has to use after tax dollars to invest, why on earth would they choose property? If they were smart, they would pay down their own home loan. If they own their home they would buy a better car, or a boat, or similar, even go on more holidays, or, they could shift their investments into something that can be negatively geared, but without the risks associated with housing as the unknown factor, which not even you can predict, is the price of used housing.

Poirot, are you aware that banks pay tax on that interest that is being claimed by the investor? Besides, few properties remain negatively geared for too long, so they cant keep claiming the loss forever, however the interest is always paid for the term of the loan, which attracts tax.

I have little doubt rents will increase to unaffordable levels, but hey, lets just wait and see because either way I wont be effected as I operate under the protections of trusts.

Dear rehctub,

I think you are making my point for me.

You ask “If a person has to use after tax dollars to invest, why on earth would they choose property?”.

Well for 5% deposit on a property which has a rate of rent return greater than the repayments, as has been available in the revitalisation project, my child will end up with a house at the end of 25 years which will be entirely paid for hopefully without much extra layout. Why wouldn't you do it? A car, boat or holiday are not investments.

If someone wants to go and pay an inflated price for an existing home as an investment I for one am objecting to subsidising it. Why aren't you?

You ask “Steel, do you honestly think an investor is going to buy a property that has been negatively geared, that can no long attract that deduction for the fun of it.”

If they are half way intelligent then of course not. Why would anyone go and buy a divestment. Why should I have to stump up for the greedy ones or the ones who want to churn properties. Bricks and mortar are long term investments, there to be held for multiple decades. Those who want to regularly turn them over can accept the greater risk without handouts from me.

I see far too many people who are signing up to buy existing rental properties without due diligence or any appreciation for the true value just because they have high incomes and want a writeoff. Fine, but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to be out of pocket for it.

Ok Steel, lets shift focus a little onto these new houses you talk about.

You say a 5% deposit secured that home, which therefore means there is also mortgage insurance involved which is usually 1% of the loan value.

So for the purpose of the exercise would you kindly provide the following.

Cost of home
Rental return, net after any agent/letting fees.
Rates

In the interest of not being personal, I would not request any personal info, its just that I would like to know more about this as both my kids are looking to invest.
Looking forward to this info.

Dear rehctub,

Actually mate you will find that mortgage insurance is closer to 2% than 1% which is why you need to avoid it at all costs.

I don't certainly intend stepping through the specific details of these houses on an open forum as I am not anonymous to quite a few here. Nor do I intend giving financial advice so perhaps we can do this in the form of a hypothetical.

Let's assume you and your son decide to buy a couple of houses in a similar project. If you personally own your home and perhaps have other rental properties substantially paid off then mortgage insurance is not required.

What about your son who is investing for the first time? As stated mortgage insurance is generally around 2% of the total amount of the loan, unless of course he has a 20% deposit which is a hell of an ask for someone who has just turned 20.

Perhaps you could get your conveyancer to split the loan into two. You might then go guarantor for the difference between your son's 5% deposit and the 20% required say $40,000. You might have an agreement with your son that any excess paid off the loans goes toward paying the one covered by you first.

You might be entitled to feel you had saved you son nearly $5,000 with no cost and minimal risk to yourself.

Cont...

Cont...

Again this is purely hypothetical. There is a marked difference between interest rates for a first home buyer and those for an investor. Perhaps your son 'fully intended' to live in the house during the build but found 'circumstances had changed' near completion. It could be that he was 'forced' to put it on the rental market as a result. The loan repayments might stay at the cheaper rate.

Perhaps you buy these houses side by side on a subdivided block. You might then be able to negotiate a better deal with the rental agents and the building company.

Now some advice for what it is worth.

The one thing you shouldn't skimp on is your conveyancer, good ones are really important and definitely worth the money.

So is getting independent rental valuations before signing anything. Even then nothing beats keeping an eye on what rents are being realised in the area for new homes. When a house is no longer being advertised for rent ring the agent to see what it was eventually leased for. This will give you an idea if the market is soft.

Homework is such a big part of it. While I'm not giving out specifics for our situation revitalisation projects are easy to Google and you can quickly do your own costings. My two have decided these areas provide cheap access with the hope that the areas will become more desirable in the future. They may well be wrong so make you own investment decisions based on your own research. I hope your sons do well.

Good old Malcom has gone and kicked an 'own goal' by snubbing the people of Brisbane. Take a bow you fool.

I though Bill handled himself very well that night, but I doubt well enough to win because labors problems are far worse than a leader of his ability and record can fix.