DunRoaminTheUK

But don't you think they must have an interest in giving the economy a 'swift kick in the pants' to get it moving again?

quoll

Aint that the truth! The muppet has absolutely no idea except for enslaving the population and taking away their personal responsibilities. The cargo cult is alive and well in new Australia.

It looks as if I might actually get a hand out - heavens above, it will be the first ever! In the mean time any income I may have from my savings will go down - again. And I dont see any light at the end of the tunnel for my super scheme which has lost about 30% of its value in the past 12 months - the hand out doesnt even come close to alleviating that pain.

ABCDiamond

But what if you don't earn enough to pay any tax ? Then you are not a Taxpayer! ??

comet555

Yes that would be us exactly. We are a single income family and I'm not working but at home with the kids.

My husband's not eligible because he makes too much (fair enough). I would be eligible but because we don't get Family tax benefit B (income test) I won't get it either.

Not really complaing, we don't really need it and I think it should go to people who really deserve it. It just sucks a bit that they keep making announcements that they're handing out all kinds of money and you never get any of it. Particularly when you know some of the people are just using it for tv's, gambling, etc. We'd be the type to put it into the mortgage or kids education, etc.

But fair enough.... I'd rather they just invest a lot into building infrastructure, schools, etc. With more help for those that are actually out of work and have bills to pay, or are really deserving of some extra help.

jayr

With 2 years to go to the election I don't think this has much to do with vote buying. If Kevin "saves us" few will remember or care (or perhaps notice).

Instead I think he really is trying to stimulate the economy. Spreading the money wide at lower income levels is more likely to increase spending than aiming at all incomes where there may be a higher likelihood of paying off mortgage debt or saving.

I would be quite happy to promise to Kevin that I will waste all my money on purchases if that is what he wants.

jayr

In my example there are families with your income (but two people working instead of one) who not only pay some $11,000 less in tax than you do but are then into the bargain get another $4000.

These families are ALREADY better off than you financially and then in addition get a handout.

It seems there are families who you may THINK are more deserving who are indeed much better off than you already.

asprilla

Exactly... well said. It amazes me that so many people don't really appreciate the above, simple point.

Many people seem convinced that its all just money down the drain and that the government is clueless ! Just try reading the comments in the couriermail online article. But many of those same people are simply biased against the current government. In their eyes, the current government can do no right...only wrong.

Burbage

They may have an interest, but they haven't got a plan. Plan A is to bribe the electorate.

Swerv-o

To be fair, I think you're missing the point of the stimulus - The idea is to give money to people who are going to spend it and keep the economy moving - not people to families who are going to save it for a rainy day.

I think KRudd missed the point with the last stimulus, and is only really starting to get it with this one. I don't think that anybody with a mortgage should get anything - there is too much risk that they will just pay the extra cash into the mortgage and straight into the bank's coffers, where it isn't going to do anything.

If he really wanted to keep the economy moving he should be dishing this out to the people who are going to spend it, because they have few other financial responsibilities - Students for example, young single people living in rented accommodation - the Paddington/Balmain single female set who go and spend hundreds of dollars a week on shoes. Young single guys who will spend it on gadgets and cars. It isn't meant to be about being fair - it's about keeping the economy moving as the rest of the world grinds to a halt.

These payments to families concerned about losing their jobs over the next 12 months are misguided. It's only logical that they will want to save the money.


S

Wol

The GFC was (is) caused by, at root, people spending more than they produce. The logic of spreading taxpayers' money around to enable even more discretionary spending escapes me. Regardless of the political party doing it.

Spending the same money on capital projects might not have Joe Public leaping up in approval, but it would in time have a far better effect and might begin to redress the lack of infrastructure spending over the years.

homewardbound

Regarding you temp peeps. i actually interpret it all differently - it is payable to Australian ie. Australian citizens with residential ie. live in/reside in and not be in another country and working or having a taxable income....

so to conclude NO that would not include temp visa status's.

Burbage

The way to stimulate the economy is to provide job security, not cash. When people aren't afraid of losing their jobs they are happy to spend money.

The building projects will provide security in the building industry, and this is a far better way to stimulate the economy than handouts. Those people having secure jobs might cause them to spend a bit giving knock-on security in the retail and service industry. Which may raise general confidence.

But the solution to this economic crisis is not confidence. The debt culture has to go. The government has failed to realise this.

The handouts are bribes, pure and simple.

42 billion might seem like a lot, but as long as it's spent in Australia the government will get most of it back as tax anyway.

MTPockets

All government policy relates back to votes. If the government actually cared about longer-term sustainability they could do something like putting money directly into locked-in savings accounts, cutting university fees - i.e. trying to ensure a greater savings rate, long-term prosperity and a competitive advantage.

In this instance there are other factors at play, but I think in general the government is genuinely scared and have no real clue as to what to do, or how. Look at how quickly growth, deficit, unemployment forecasts are changing.

So they're following the global central bank and government crowd in throwing as much good money after bad at the problem as they can get hold of, and hoping it works. Their hand is largely forced into this action due to the vocal consenus that this is the only possible approach - and any country that doesn't do it will be savaged in the bond, credit, currency markets, domestic funding, overseas investment etc - so it's now a very sad, self-perpetuating cycle.

I hope it helps out a few people, but it won't work as you cannot remedy a debt problem with more debt.

Swerv-o

This is a much better way to spend this money. Capital investment in projects will inject money into a vast range of industries tired up with the project - transport, infrastructure, catering.

I think, however, they are banking on this being a short term knee jerk stimulus - capital infrastructure projects inevitably have a long lead time after which it may be too late to save/stimulate the economy.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen hand outs to small business in terms of encouraging them to keep employees through the lean times.


S

asprilla

That is one school of thought. But the problem with enlarging your capital base, is that you have to maintain it. Which costs big $$$ in itself, over the life of the assets (which is effectively infinite).

The answer isn't just to simply spend on infrastructure. Spending on infrastructure needs to be done in balance with Australian growth. E.g. a 4 lane ring road around bendigo might stave off unemployment for 2 or 3 years, but in the long term, is it a good investment?

I know that example is going a bit far... but my point is that infrastructure investment isn't the be all and end all.