Tip from a friend: Australia’s economy is in a slow race to ruin
Sometimes it takes outsiders to say the obvious but unwelcome things: high spending, low growth and red tape are hurting us. Why does Labor fail to see it?
Sometimes it takes outsiders to say the obvious but unwelcome things: high spending, low growth and red tape are hurting us. Why does Labor fail to see it?
Australian conservatives — however much they might be impressed by the way MAGA has fought back against woke ideas — would do well to understand that a successful movement cannot be defined forever by what it opposes.
A half-century on from stagflation, outdated workplace rules and union monopolies remain the biggest barrier to reversing the Australian economy’s slipping productivity and wealth.
The Labor government’s early surpluses now look like a flash in the pan and the budget is back to a deficit – which is set to deepen.
There is a long history of fiscal rules, but the overall record is patchy, with governments lacking the fortitude to stick to rules when the going got tough.
Industry Minister Tim Ayres rightly says that Australia is in competition for global capital as he throws taxpayer money at …
If Tomago meets the criteria for a taxpayer bailout, then so do thousands of other businesses. The government will be back in the business of propping up unviable companies (if it ever really left).
The fact is, the more tightly assistance is targeted at those in need, the lower the overall cost to the taxpayers, and correspondingly the greater efficiency (in terms of reducing poverty) you see for every dollar spent.
In reality, it was taxpayers and consumers who were being held hostage: by government who funnelled billions of dollars to the car industry, and by big business and big unions who made sweetheart deals to distribute their ill-gotten subsidies.
Rumours are swirling that the government may reconsider its superannuation tax changes that will hit those with balances above $3 million with new taxes, including taxing unrealised capital gains. Abandoning this policy change would be the right call: the supporting rationale for it is weak and largely incoherent.