renth

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2...lease_0778.cfm

Deutschmaster

Kev's going to hate how I'm going to put the $950 in a savings account towards the deposit on a home loan - which I don't intend to get either for a couple of years until everything has calmed down

jayr

There are mixed views on how this "stimulus" should be created. One off hits (like in December) cause one off increase in spending. Tax cuts provide longer term stimulus but are more difficult to claw back (noone likes a tax raising government). Infrastructure spend works but can have a bit of a lead time before money is spent and jobs created.

Rudd appears to be using cash handouts to give some short term stimulus while spending larger sums on longer term projects (that will likely commence later this year), and so there is some balance in his approach.

I do fear that the global reaction to events is in danger of causing future repetitive boom and bust cycles however. All those Treasury bonds issued by the US (and soon by Australia) have to be paid for and the only source of Govt revenue is general taxation.

As others have siad or implied, the problem arose due to extravagant consumer spending supported by high levels of debt. Encouraging spending will not change that

OzSheila

Of the last one, $81m was paid to recipients abroad. Lot of good that did for the local economy!

jayr

OK but that is not what the "rules" suggest. You essentially need to be Australian resident for tax purposes i.e. earning income and paying tax in Australia. The issue of your actual location, your citizenship status or visa status are thus irrelevant.

Non-PR or citizens are not eligible for Family Tax Benefit. The lack of eligibility makes them not eligible for the "back to school" handout.

jayr

The last one was over $10billion of which $81M is less than 1%.

MTPockets

It's not about missing the point, it's about (at least for me) having a fundamentally different perspective on economics and the role of government. I'm still in awe that so many people are surprised at the notion of having to cut back and address spending/saving habits in a slowdown. This process is nothing new, but the peaks and troughs could certainly be lessened if everybody stood back a little and approached things from the perspective of 'if I can't afford it I won't buy it until I can'. That's the very simple root cause of the problem - promoting spending only perpetuates this.

Exactly. This is phoney economics now - if it wasn't afforable in the good times how the heck is it affordable now? And with rates at a mult-decade low the rolling cost of servicing the debt in the longer-term will only increase (via initial capital via bond issuance, interest payments and maintainance costs - wages/raw materials). Jobs aren't really being 'created' they're just being transferred from one sector to another, and only temporarily at that. If a project wasnt a good idea 5 years ago, why is a good one today?

Swerv-o

I'm getting at the point that some posters seem to think that this should be all about giving money to families - that some families are more deserving than others, where, for this sort of thing to be effective, should it really be given to families at all? KRudd and his cronies don't seem to be able to open their mouths without mentioning the words 'working families' and I think this is obvious vote/good will purchasing for low and middle income Australia.

Given what they are allegedly attempting to achieve with this, I would question the wisdom of dishing this money out to people who are simply going to put it away.

I do question the wisdom of giving money away at all - it will only have a very limited effect, but if people are spending, then that keeps people in jobs - distributors, shops, anybody connected with the process of selling. Even if people just go and spend the money in the pub, it keeps bar staff, brewery workers, delivery folks, salespersons, cleaners etc in jobs. This can't be a bad thing.


S

Deutschmaster

I don't reckon that families should get more than people without children, having brats is a lifestyle choice. I get tired of people whining 'oh but it easy for you not having children'. To this I usually respond 'shouldn't have had them then'. Then they really get pissed off

TillyG

I've been trying to work out what (if anything) we would be entitled to.

DH earns about 110k and we have 1 child (and 1 on the way, but not due to be here until May/Jun). We currently get Family Benefit B and child has just this last week started school. I don't work, but gave the Family Assistance office an estimate of about $800 income (from interest from money we brought over from the UK).

From the looks of it we'll get $950 - based on this bit I found on the SMH website: Single-income families who receive the Family Tax Benefit Part B - about 1.5 million families - will get $950 on March 11. It will only be paid to those who were eligible for Family Tax Benefit Part B on February 3.

Not too sure if we count as single-income or not as I've put an approx interest "income".

mindblower

QUOTE]

Looks like they know as much as Gordo the Clown ?

Sustained tax cuts for workers plus infrastructure seems best to me.

They will blow the inherited surplus ,which will be more bad news stoked up for the future.

Hmmm..

MTPockets

Oh I see. Well I don't think it should be 'given away' at all. If government were so concerned about 'families' they'd be looking at issues such as paid maternity/paternity leave, social services and foster care funding, child benefits. That they're not but prefer to play the handout game says it all.

The spending issue. If money could be magiced out of thin air with no inflationary consequence I'd agree with you. But that cash has to come from somewhere and at a heavy cost. Not only will it impact other future social policy choices, but it requires everybody to pay the burden of the mismanagement of others (be that federal/local government, companies or individuals).

Most worryingly however, there are serious implicaions with regards to everyone's future standard of living. The tax burden is increasing, there will be inflationary effects (I'm not talking hyperinflation) which will erode spending power and future governments will be forced to reassess welfare/education/social priorities on the basis of less money to go round. This could easily translate into higher taxes, greater educational costs, less spending on health - for decades.

If the current environment implies serious debt cutbacks, some job losses and slowing growth for time, while a better spending/saving balance is put into place so be it - at least it's one generation paying for their own mistakes, not wimping out, expecting to be bailed out and increasing the future burden.

comet555

I agree with that, and I think that's why I have an issue with the broad handouts.

I agree. I know a few people that have recently lost their jobs. They're worried about how to pay for bills and can't seem to find a new job because there's hardly any new jobs and when there's is there's so much competition. These people are certainly not going to be out spending money when there is a potential that they will be out of work for quite some time.

DunRoaminTheUK

You are running the risk of looking like one of these in the eyes of a lot of people on here:

comet555

You should still get it as far as I know.
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/interne.../ftb_b_iat.htm

Where the primary earner's income is at or below this limit, the payment of FTB Part B will be assessed on the basis of the secondary earner's income. Secondary earners can earn up to $4,526 each year before it affects the rate of FTB Part B.