Students helping students, join us in improving Bored of Studies by donating and supporting future students!
no way, after tax cuts it will be only around 5 billion max.sunjet said:...11 Billion surplus ?![]()
It's come in at 9 billion.Deus said:Im betting on a ~$7 bn surplus.
- Tax Cuts
- A focus on families (mainly childcare etc)
- Perhaps measure to curb problems associated with the ageing population.
Underlying cash surplus of $8.9 billion.Deus said:8.7billion
I'm sure there is a reason for that. I'm thinking its probably because they don't want it more expansionary than it is because they are already predicting 3% growth. Having some extra cash can't hurt.mr_shittles said:Even with all those tax cuts, there's still $8.9 billion left over. They could have spent $2.3b more on abolishing the top tax rate and another $5.2b increasing the tax free threshold to $10,000. And they would have still had $1.4 billion in surplus left over to put into that future fund.
The level of growth announced in the budget is still at the bottom of Australia's growth targets and historically low for a non-recessionary period with record company profits. Further fiscal stimulation would not have had had an adverse impact on the economy.iamsickofyear12 said:I'm sure there is a reason for that. I'm thinking its probably because they don't want it more expansionary than it is because they are already predicting 3% growth. Having some extra cash can't hurt.
Australia has been growing steadily for a long time. It doesn't need to grow any faster than 3%.mr_shittles said:The level of growth announced in the budget is still at the bottom of Australia's growth targets and historically low for a non-recessionary period with record company profits. Further fiscal stimulation would not have had had an adverse impact on the economy.
I don't think Peter Costello has ever delivered a bad budget. They've all been fairly good since he took over. He's probably the most responsible Commonwealth Treasurer in a long time.Deus said:Yes its a good budget.
Overall, there is something for everybody.
Its the kind of budget you expect just before an election....
No, but it could and I think it should try (so long as the growth is non-inflationary).iamsickofyear12 said:Australia has been growing steadily for a long time. It doesn't need to grow any faster than 3%.
Of course it could. And thats why they are holding back the rest of the surplus because they don't want it to grow that strongly. I think they are just trying to avoid overheating the economy and starting to get some slowdown. A constant growth rate of 3% is better than 5% followed by a drop to 1% or less than 1%.mr_shittles said:No, but it could and I think it should try (so long as the growth is non-inflationary).
In the 1990s Australia twice recorded Real GDP growth (ie. after inflation) of 5% and had many years of 4% growth.
Deus said:and the poor!