Yeah, Vote {HARD} Labour.....NOT!
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: TimC on 13 Aug 2010 03:39 On 2010-08-12, Doug Jewell (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: > For that matter, if things did go belly up into a full-blown > recession and we hit 10% unemployment, it would have been > cheaper to pay the unemployed $35k/year for 2 years, than > the Labor stimulus. Such spending would have still had an > equivalent stimulus effect anyway. > What labor did was waste. Pure and simple. 2 problems. No government could give $35K/year to unemployed people, because conservative rant radio would have a field day about all of that lower class welfare. Takes away from the available pool of money to give as middle and upper class welfare. Can't have that. Piers Ackerman, Lawsie and Bolty would have a heart attack and die! And the voters who listen to those gateways of pubic opinion would miss their their regular fix and be sad, and would have to go out and vote to get rid of the party in question. 2nd problem is that the 35000*0.05*20e6=35 billion dollars you're allocating to said welfare[1] is about the same amount of money the government spent on the stimulus, from memory (16 billion for the schools, a few billion for the pink batts installed by dodgy con-artists, and a few other smaller measures). Where the deficit comes in, is the reduced taxation taken on the smaller amount of economic activity that has been happening during the recession. Your plan would have not changed this. Unemployed people do not produce anything that can be taxed (not until we have a carbon tax and start taxing farts). So the difference between the 2 "plans" is one keeps the people employed and doing nominally useful and productive things (like running banks. Ok, don't laugh. Economically "useful" perhaps), and in the other plan, they would be sitting on their arses. [1] Assuming you only want to give it to the extra 5% of unemployed, not including the original 5% of people that are always unemployed regardless of the prevailing economic conditions; double it to 70 billion if you want to include those dregs of society in the payment too. -- TimC If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
From: OzOne on 13 Aug 2010 05:57 On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:38:38 +1000, "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote: >I'm sure there's been some good has come out of it, but for every good story >there seems to be ten tales of woe. Seems you can't help with the bullshit! Do you ever get out of your garage and take a look at the world? "To date, the Taskforce has received complaints in respect of 254 schools; approximately 2.7% of all schools involved in the BER program, and of these over half relate to value for money." http://www.bertaskforce.gov.au/documents/publications/Interim_report_release.pdf Theat'd be 2.7 for every 100......just for those who appear challenged! OzOne of the three twins I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: Doug Jewell on 13 Aug 2010 09:39 TimC wrote: > On 2010-08-12, Doug Jewell (aka Bruce) > was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: >> For that matter, if things did go belly up into a full-blown >> recession and we hit 10% unemployment, it would have been >> cheaper to pay the unemployed $35k/year for 2 years, than >> the Labor stimulus. Such spending would have still had an >> equivalent stimulus effect anyway. >> What labor did was waste. Pure and simple. > > 2 problems. No government could give $35K/year to unemployed people, > because conservative rant radio would have a field day about all of > that lower class welfare. Takes away from the available pool of money > to give as middle and upper class welfare. Can't have that. Piers > Ackerman, Lawsie and Bolty would have a heart attack and die! And the > voters who listen to those gateways of pubic opinion would miss their > their regular fix and be sad, and would have to go out and vote to get > rid of the party in question. > > 2nd problem is that the 35000*0.05*20e6=35 billion dollars you're > allocating to said welfare[1] is about the same amount of money the > government spent on the stimulus, from memory (16 billion for the > schools, a few billion for the pink batts installed by dodgy > con-artists, and a few other smaller measures). Where the deficit > comes in, is the reduced taxation taken on the smaller amount of > economic activity that has been happening during the recession. Your > plan would have not changed this. Unemployed people do not produce > anything that can be taxed (not until we have a carbon tax and start > taxing farts). So the difference between the 2 "plans" is one keeps > the people employed and doing nominally useful and productive things > (like running banks. Ok, don't laugh. Economically "useful" > perhaps), and in the other plan, they would be sitting on their arses. > > > [1] Assuming you only want to give it to the extra 5% of unemployed, > not including the original 5% of people that are always unemployed > regardless of the prevailing economic conditions; double it to 70 > billion if you want to include those dregs of society in the payment > too. Of course doing that type of payment would be problem bound. I wasn't suggesting they should actually have done it - I was making the point of how much money they spent to achieve not a lot. Perhaps to reword the statement - it cost more than $70k for every job saved. Reality is, the way the stimulus was handled has merely dug a hole for the future. If things get really pear-shaped in the future, we've got no money left to pull through. If things get rosy in the future, we won't be able to reap the full benefits because we'll be hamstrung by the huge debt. -- What is the difference between a duck?
From: Jason James on 13 Aug 2010 16:21
"Doug Jewell" <ask(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message news:qLWdnfbloeWC1vjRnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au> > Reality is, the way the stimulus was handled has merely dug a hole for the > future. If things get really pear-shaped in the future, we've got no money > left to pull through. If things get rosy in the future, we won't be able > to reap the full benefits because we'll be hamstrung by the huge debt. Yeah, but,..we all got $900 odd smackers,..in terms of tax we pay, that is a mere fraction. OTOH, the bungled infrastructure projects were a turkey-shoot waste of money. Jason |