individual,

We all have our opinions on who should be paid what but, seriously, the wages of public servants and politicians are not the cause of debt: that's down to the borrowing and spending, and all the handouts and bad decisions made by these people, who would be idiots no matter what they got paid. We simply don't have the best people in government and the public sector no matter what they are paid.

ttbn,
Over 25-35% of overpaid on the public payroll is not the cause but it greatly contributes to the country running low on savings ! As for inadequates being in power we can only count our lucky stars the other mob's not in at this stage but they're doing a brilliant job in interfering & social sabotage.

A reduction in government spending was what was being
suggested as the answer in the opening post of this
discussion.

Translated that would end up being a cut
in possibly essential services like aged care and
hospitals and even possibly our general health scheme
like Medicare and or even pensions.

Therefore I brought
up the suggestion - to start cuts in government
spending with politician's salaries instead of
essential services. And because it
was David Leyonhjelm who wrote the article on our
government debt - instead of even thinking about other cuts
polititian's salaries just might make these guys think
twice before cutting what we actually do need to survive.

Cutting our debt is all very well - but so is living
healthy and happy lives. Which should be available to
everyone - not just a select few on high salaries.

If you don't like stores runnning out of basics or
waiting in line for food and medical care - you're not
going to like socialism - which cutting government spending
will cause.

Still this is only my opinion. I think some people enjoy
complaining almost as much as they enjoy doing nothing
about it.

individual,

Government salaries are chicken feed compared to the money this government is blowing. It really surprises me that you have fallen for the 'we are better off with the Liberals than we would be with Labor' mantra. That one is well and truly worn out. There is not a cigarette paper between the two these days.

One of the beauties of conservatism is the connection between the past, the present and the future, something that the Liberal Party no longer honours: they are throwing future generations to the wolves, just like the socialists. And, just like the socialists, they will run out of other people's money soon enough. Perhaps we need to accept that they are socialists, not just like them. They have certainly outspent Labor.

As Leyonhjelm, not me, points out, the money spent on the interest on the debt comes from the same bucket that provides pensions, childcare, defence, health, education, the NDIS, and all the things that make for a fair, just and safe society, "Money that could fund an increase in age pensions or unemployment benefits, or equip the ADF with modern weapons, will be required to pay interest."

I actually agree with ttbn on this topic; "the wages of public servants and politicians are not the cause of debt: that's down to the borrowing and spending, and all the handouts" I believe the Morrison government panicked with economic support when Covid hit, running up a trillion dollar debt in no time. Most programs including 'Jobkeeper' the jewel in the crown, were nothing more than a wasteful cash splash to appease fear stricken voters and business. I agree borrowing was necessary to maintain the economy, but that borrowing/investment should have be targeted so to give Australia long term benefit and long term sustainable outcomes. Some say, "Oh! but there was a short term economic emergency" and I agree but that showed how Australia has no economic emergency plan to deal with crises, other than some sort of wasteful cash splash.

In good times business, including banks, big corporations, small business, landlords etc, benefit enormously from our economic system, why was it they had to be protected from any adverse economic impact when things went wrong. Is not one of the principles of "free enterprise" risk taking, is that not why we tolerate business making trillions from the collective efforts of all of us? Where was the risk for business during this pandemic, none, it was protected by socialist government intervention.

In our own circumstance, last year the wife and I waived our rent for three months on our investment property in Sydney, with no requirement or expectation of collecting back rent in the future. Our tenants were genuinely on hard times, which I checked personally and did not rely on the agent, that our tenants 3 Indian girl students were in no position to pay rent. I'm no saint, it was the wife's insistence. Our agents attitude was by law when the tenants back on their feet they can pay back rent. As we agreed would that rent make much difference to us, no not really. As for the agent and his commission, the wife said tell him, he can take double commission for three months, she would hate to see his Volvo run out of fuel or something. The wife's attitude was we do well out of our investment in good times, we can afford to take a hit in bad times.