Well, there goes a theory that the government has a vested interest in the “families” because that’s where its future, sustained labor force - and therefore income - comes from.
Whereas individuals and couples without children are contributing through their work and therefore income taxes, sure, but after retirement and death what are you contributing to the state? Nothing.
Them’s just the licks. It’s a cold world.
ON EDIT: I see Thylacine has laid out essentially the same theory earlier in the thread.
I was debating whether to start a new thread and link to the old one or just tack it here. I don’t really like starting threads, so here we are!
Plus I thought it might be interesting to put it here since a lot of the people who missed out the first time might get money this time. Turnbull looks pretty set on blocking it though, so maybe it’s a moot point.
Turnbull is an arsehole and if the independents get anything tacked on for their constituents , then the Libs/Nats can vote against it all they want it will still pass the Senate and obviously the ALP have the numbers in the House.
I’m just a little grumpy because I get squat this time around. I have (essentially) no mortgage, no credit card debt, a shitload of super, $80K in the bank and I would spend anything Kev gave me on frivolous things and stimulate the economy rather than retire debt.
But no, we don’t give it to the rich, we give it to the poor to piss up the wall or blow on the pokies. What are we? Fricken’ socialists?
Single, and on a pretty good wage but with moderately crippling mortgage payments ($1,000 a week straight off the top for a run-down terrace in Newtown).
When I saw that I wasn’t getting anything in this round either my first response was fairly explicit. It wasn’t until I realised that I was asking “why aren’t they giving me any free money” before I realised the answer.
Oh, yeah - I’m rich. I’m just choosing to be poor in order in to buy the house I want. Never mind, then. Carry on.
And already the email forwards have begun. This one hit my inbox today…
I’d prefer it if they’d stimulate the public education sector, or the hospitals, or even enviro / climate change issues if they’ve got the money to throw around. Hell, stimulate the labourer industry and fix some of the crappy roads that keep trying to kill me!
I agree with the post above. I think I will get the payout to some degree, but there is nothing I need. So I will just bank it. Hell if I am going to throw it away on some garbage I will never use.
Thanks for the link hawthorne. You might be able to explain something that has been confusing me. The purpose of the payout is to stimulate the economy by giving people extra money. Is there a reason the government doesn’t put all the money towards improving infrastructure? Because the money would still be going to people who would spend it, same as the cash payout. Is it that they want to give money to a broader range of people to have the most effect? Is it not putting all their eggs in the same basket?
I admit to preferring Turnbull’s proposed plan of bringing forward tax cuts for purely selfish reasons. Is there a reason that Rudd didn’t do this? Is it because tax cuts primarily benefit the better-off? Is it because people have to wait until they do their taxes to get the money back and they think that it’ll be too late by then?
I can’t really get too riled up by it all. The economy has been very good to us, and I hope that whatever they do pass helps those who haven’t been as fortunate.
I’m glad to hear the rest of us are finally going to get some Free Money™, but I’ve been on holiday in the Whitsundays for a few days so I haven’t heard much about it besides the fact they’re talking about it and $950 will go a way towards paying off my credit card.
It’s not just couples without children who get nothing; couples who have already raised their families without having thousands of dollars thrown at them will also get nothing.
You’re pretty much right. I should add a disclaimer here - I’m an economist, but I’m not a macro guy and I haven’t studied the government’s package in any detail. There’s a combination of things at work here:
A balance between sectors - you don’t just want construction to do well, you want a shoring up across sectors including household demand. Sure, there’ll be leakage into imports, but a lot of retail and wholesale sector employment depends on selling them for their living.
A balance between private and public spending. You’ve got to be a bit concerned about the quality of some of the infrastructure projects we’ll see. You also don’t want the starting point for a recovery to be one where government activity is very high because it can be politically hard to scale back.
Giving money to those suffering or most likely to suffer. There’s a relief element to the package as well as a stimulus. It’s kind of mixed together, though - a bit of tiding-over money for consumers can stop some people going to the wall and this might stop a spiral of smaller business collapse. But some of this is purely about giving money to people who are doing it tough for no substantial fault of their own.
Wedging the opposition. Make no mistake, this is a part of it. People - rightly or wrongly - think they have a stake in this and that Truffles is trying to take it away.
Yep. Also because standard macro theory says that spending gives you a bigger bang than tax cuts, because a proportion of tax cuts are saved. Also, it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do because tax cuts are permanent (and therefore add to the structural deficit) whereas these spending and handout measures are (supposed to be) temporary. Again, according to standard macro, temporary spending measures have the biggest impact. Also, assuming this horrible situation starts to mend soonish, the government will be keen to get the budget back in surplus. Obviously this is easier if you have temporary spending and handout measures rather than permanent tax cuts. (See Josh Gans on this point and here.)
I would have liked to see a bigger package with a greater focus on infrastructure, and for the RBA to have cut by more last week. But what we’ve got looks very much like the sorts of thing that Treasury folks were talking about what they’d do next time after the policy disaster of the last big recession.
This is a long-term bloody annoyance. It got rolling under Brian Howe and got really out of control under Howard. The hidden bit is the paying off debt business - we are supposed to pay for yesterday’s infrastructure by running surpluses, and today’s and *then *bequeath the lot to tomorrow’s richer generation for nothing? There’s a silver lining for the childless here in the use of debt to fund infrastructure. But long term, yeah, couples with children get a pretty rich deal (because they’re swinging voters of course).
I forgive. I thought it was a new thread too, until I had a moment of deja vu and checked the dates.
