Kevin Rudd Announces Low Income Grant

[sixappeal]

1 of 5 I would def get a career change 24k that's crazy no wonder your battling. Plus side interest rate's on home loans have been chopped so maybe look into that.

[dule]

TEDracing, I completely agree with you...

[jasol]

I spoke to my tax man yesty, he said to be ilegable you need to have 08' tax done by April 09'.

how does that work they said on the news IF the money was handed out it would be in late march erly april and they said to get the money you had to have worked last finaceual year and erned under 80k.

[phantomchic]

This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?

A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?

A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?

A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?

A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-

definition TV set or a new computer, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?

A. Shut up.

[ronburgundy]

Another one I received from a client via email this morning - I'm sure we all have seen such things but I found it interesting nonetheless.

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job; however, is the changing political landscape in this country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Subaru Outback outside. You've seen my big home at last year's Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealised thoughts about my life.

However, what you don't see is the back story.

I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 2 bedroom flat for 3 years. My entire living area was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of baked beans, stew and soup because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a wonky transmission. I didn't have time to go out with women. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50,000 a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the David Jones for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Subaru, the vacations... you never realise the back story and the sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their pay suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.

Yes, business ownership has its benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a accountant to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. overnment mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a cheque to the Australian tax Office for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" cheque was? Zero. Zip. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a lourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare cheque? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your pay you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had the government suddenly mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Canberra black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of Australia and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. But the power brokers in Canberra believe the poor of Australia are the essential drivers of the Australian economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.

So where am I going with all this?

It's quite simple.

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your 4WD and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalises the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a politicians that swept through this country changed its financial landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....

Signed,

Your boss

Garry Wright

Dealer Principal

Total Nissan

[xr6 typhoon]

Looks like its $900 not $950. Whatever they do with the $50 they'll still be pissing it up the wall

[TornadoJudd]

Warning long post

LEIGH SALES: Joe Hockey, the Government's stimulus package follows the advice of the IMF to a tee. It's won the broad support of business unions and the Treasury, yet the Opposition's decided not to vote for it. What evidence or advice did you rely on in making that decision?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, we have a range of sources of advice.

LEIGH SALES: And who are they?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I mean - you know, some of them probably wouldn't want to be identified, others I'm sure probably would. But, we had a range of sources of advice.

LINDSAY TANNER: Milton Freeman, Arthur Laffer, John Taylor ...

JOE HOCKEY: Well, you know, what, we actually have - the best information we have is that which we harnessed from being 10 years in government, last paying off $96 billion of Labor government debt, leaving the country with net assets of $70 billion, leaving the country with a government that was debt-free, leaving the Labor Party, unfortunately, with a $20 billion surplus. Now, that wisdom and experience that we gained in government, last paying off the Labor Party's debt, made us have a second look at what the Labor Party was doing and we went, "Enough. This is crazy. This is bad. It's too big. It's bad spending."

LEIGH SALES: OK, but that was now a long time ago, a number of years ago. As I said before, the IMF backs their position, business in Australia broadly backs their position. Just give me one body that has given you advice or backs your position.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, I'll tell you who backs our position, the next generation of Australians that are now going to have to pay off $200 billion of Labor Party debt and rising with an asterisk next to it.

LINDSAY TANNER: Not correct.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, can I tell you, mate, it's emerging at the moment that the state governments are going to have to borrow $60 billion. $60 billion. That's over the next two years, that we can see. Not four years, two years. That's on top of your concession - Lindsay Tanner's concession during the week, that, well, the total credit card limit for Australia has to be increased from $75 billion to $200 billion. And we found out late last night in the Senate inquiry that in fact that $200 billion is already accounted for in new borrowings by the Commonwealth. So you add all that up and it's just a phenomenal amount of money. It took us 10 years to pay off $100 billion of Labor debt. How long will it take to pay off $200 billion debt?

LINDSAY TANNER: Leigh, this is all grossly misleading, absolutely misleading. Because what it ignores is financial assets on the other side of the ledger. The Federal Government is both a borrower and a lender and we have been in what's been called negative net debt; in other words, more people owe money to the government than the government owes money. These effects, these circumstances, because of the huge hole in government revenue that has been blown by the global financial crisis, are pushing us into the need for borrowing and going into actual debt. But the real amount of debt that's projected is about $70 billion because there are substantial assets on the other side of the ledger. We have to have the capacity to borrow, yes, but we also ...

JOE HOCKEY: What are those assets, Lindsay? What are the assets?

LINDSAY TANNER: Those assets are in the Future Fund, HECS debt, assets that will flow from the involvement in the commercial property vehicle, for example. So there is very substantial ...

JOE HOCKEY: But that commercial property, $30 billion is not even in the $200 billion.

LINDSAY TANNER: That's because it is not gonna be a loan-based vehicle and because that is only a contingency.

JOE HOCKEY: There you go, yeah.

LINDSAY TANNER: So, the Opposition is grossly exaggerating these circumstances, Leigh. Let me tell you where the projected debt level will hit in three years time. It will hit exactly the same level that prevailed in 2001/2002 - seven years ago, halfway through the term of the Howard Government. It will hit about 5 per cent of our total economy. The average it costs the developed world is 45 per cent and it's rising rapidly. We are still gonna be one of the lowest debt countries in the world. That level of debt was sustainable and manageable in 2001/2002. It will be sustainable and manageable in 2011/12.

LEIGH SALES: Alright, let me pick up on a point that Lindsay Tanner made there where he spoke about the need to go into debt. Joe Hockey, your side of politics has been painting deficits as inherently evil and surpluses as inherently good, but economists say deficits are a perfectly valid tool to use at a time of economic downturn. With Australians already very worried, do you need to scare them further about deficits?

JOE HOCKEY: Oh, talk about scaring. Kevin Rudd had three press conferences to talk about ...

LEIGH SALES: No, no, I'm asking about what you're doing. We'll talk about them in a minute, but I'm asking about what you're doing in terms of this scare campaign about deficits.

JOE HOCKEY: No, no, well, you know what, we stand for surplus budgets because we delivered surplus budgets. We well remember the Labor Party opposing us at every turn when we tried to get the budget into surplus.

LINDSAY TANNER: Complete rubbish.

LEIGH SALES: So are you saying that the economic principle of using a deficit at a time of downturn is wrong, is invalid?

JOE HOCKEY: No, no, no, not at all. In fact we had a deficit when seven out of our top 10 trading partners were in a recession.

LINDSAY TANNER: And you're accepting a deficit now. You're leader's accepted there's gonna be a deficit now.

LEIGH SALES: But we're now about to have six out of 10.

JOE HOCKEY: If I can just finish, if I can just finish. We accept that there will be times when you have a deficit, but you've got to have a plan to get out of that deficit and to pay the debt. And the thing is that the Labor Party now is just saying, "Spend, spend, spend," but they're not telling us how on earth they are going to get out of this massive, not only structural deficit, because that's what they're leaving us with, but a massive debt bill - that's our problem with what they're doing. And it's very frustrating for us. I mean, it's frustrating for us to see all the work of 10 years blown in 12 months.

LEIGH SALES: Lindsay Tanner?

LINDSAY TANNER: Leigh, this is about ensuring that we protect jobs, that we protect economic growth, that we keep businesses operating and that we keep our economy moving forward - positive growth. That's what this is all about. And if we don't do that, we'll have bigger deficits and we'll have longer time to pay off ever-mounting debt. We have got to keep the growth going 'cause that delivers stronger tax revenues. And Joe is quite wrong, we do have a specific plan that was made public as part of all of this package about returning to surplus. And that sets three clear rules for us: as soon as growth resumes at its normal level, normal trend level, then we are required to not increase spending by more than 2 per cent in real terms per year, to offset new spending proposals by savings and to allow tax revenue to grow up to the level that we committed to maintain it no higher than which is the level we inherited from our predecessors as a proportion of the economy. So we have got a clear pathway to get back into surplus. What the Liberal Party haven't got is any kind of commitment for jobs and small businesses and the economic activity in this country. That's what's crucial now. That's what we're fighting. That's what governments around the world are fighting to protect and to sustain.

LEIGH SALES: OK. I asked Joe Hockey about scaring people; let me ask you about the same thing. The Government was painting daily a gloomier and gloomier picture of the economy in the lead-up to the announcement about your stimulus package on Tuesday. Isn't it entirely possible that this undermined confidence further and made people even more anxious, encouraging them to save rather than spend?

LINDSAY TANNER: Look, I don't believe so, Leigh. We have to walk a very fine line here. We have to be honest with the Australian people. That's why we had to announce that we'd received advice from Treasury that there were radical revisions in tax revenues within months of significant revisions of course that occurred in November. Now, imagine the criticism had we sat on that advice and said, "Look, we're not gonna tell anybody because it's too scary."

LEIGH SALES: But did it require daily announcements in the lead-up to that stimulus announcement about the gloomy picture?

LINDSAY TANNER: Well, I don't think we've had daily announcements from the Government.

LEIGH SALES: I think we actually have.

LINDSAY TANNER: We've had an obligation to be honest and open with the Australian people, but also, you're quite right, we have an obligation to talk up the prospects of getting through this. I've been doing that all the time, so have my colleagues. We understand that confidence is central to this, but so's frankness, so's honesty. So we've gotta meet a very delicate balance there. I believe we're doing that. But I am absolutely firmly committed to Australian businesses and Australian workplaces getting back into strong growth. I believe that'll happen. I believe that the character, the strength, the innovation, the creativity that's innate in this country, that's innate in our workforce, that's innate in our businesses will see us through. But we've gotta be realistic about the challenges we're facing.

LEIGH SALES: Mr Tanner, if the global economic situation worsens, as the IMF is warning may do, what's left in the cupboard to deal with that? Have you, as the Opposition has advised you to do, left something up your sleeve?

LINDSAY TANNER: We've made it plain all the way through that if further action is required, then we stand ready to take that action. Clearly, we've put on the table a very substantial stimulus package. It works out at about 2 per cent of gross domestic product of our total economy for the course of this year. That's serious. That's similar, maybe a bit smaller in some cases, to what's happening in many other countries around the world. Clearly, we'll be re-examining all of the situation between now and the Budget. We've got to put a Budget together for May. We stand ready for further action if and when required. But all of the parameters are in play. The level of the deficit, tax receipts, spending, the debt levels - all of these issues will be under constant examination. But the critical thing - I reiterate: the critical thing is sustaining and supporting jobs in our economy and sustaining and supporting our businesses.

LEIGH SALES: Alright.

LINDSAY TANNER: That's what'll see us through. If we just sit back as Julie Bishop the Shadow Treasurer suggested the other day, sit back and see what happens, then that's a recipe for disaster.

JOE HOCKEY: She didn't do that; that's wrong. That's just dead wrong, Lindsay.

LEIGH SALES: She was quoted in the paper as saying that we should sit and wait and see how things unfold.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, there's one thing to suggest, as Lindsay is, that she said sit back, but it's also time to be cautious, to look carefully at the indicators. You know what ...

LEIGH SALES: That's actually inconsistent with the advice of the IMF which said it's better to act sooner rather than later.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, you know, the IMF gives lots of advice. There was someone from the IMF that also said that one of the best stimulus - one of the best stimulants you could have for the economy is tax cuts. The Labor Party conveniently forgot that advice from the IMF. But, you know, the thing is you've got to be cautious about spending money and you've got to be cautious about going into a substantial deficit, because you know what, it's damn hard to get out of it. And the Labor Party has no real experience in getting out of massive deficits, except when Paul Keating said we were becoming a "banana republic" back in the mid-'80s, when the current account deficit blew out, he had to dramatically turn around from being - running a deficit into a surplus. These guys, if our current account completely, you know, disintegrates and we have a massive current account deficit, these guys have no capacity to get the budget back into surplus without a dramatic negative impact right across the Australian community. And I'd just ask Lindsay Tanner the question: what will you do if the current account deficit deteriorates? What action can you take?

LEIGH SALES: Lindsay Tanner?

LINDSAY TANNER: Well, Joe, I think you better learn some economic history because in the circumstances that prevailed in the mid-1980s, growth was running strongly and that's when you get big current account deficits. We inherited a very big current account deficit verging on around 6 per cent of GDP from your government. And, to be fair, it was when growth ...

JOE HOCKEY: It was never at 6 per cent of GDP. That's - never, no.

LINDSAY TANNER: Yes it was. Yes it was. Yes it was. And to be fair, that's typically associated with growth running very strongly, the mining boom had really pumped up growth. It is now projected to fall to about 3.5 per cent within a couple of years. So, I can tell you that if we get a current account deficit returning to the levels that you're talking about, then that will be because we've had an extended run of substantial increases in economic growth. So the kind of scenario you're presenting here is just simply not gonna occur in the foreseeable future.

LEIGH SALES: OK, let me move us on. Let me move us on. I wanna touch on a few more issues before we run out of time. Joe Hockey, it's starting to look as though Malcolm Turnbull thinks the next election will be about deficit and debt. Kevin Rudd's banking on it being about jobs. Don't jobs trump deficit every time in most people's minds?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, no, it is about debt and jobs. I mean, what defines the next election is usually determined during the course of the election campaign, if not just before. And - but, you know, this isn't - we know what we are doing is not going to be politically popular. You know, we're going to suffer a hit in the polls, it's pretty obvious. Saying to people, "Look, we don't think it's time for you to get $950 from the Government," is - you know, they describe it as a courageous political decision, and it is.

LEIGH SALES: So it's a high-risk strategy?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, but it's not about the politics of it, it's about the principle.

LEIGH SALES: It's always about the politics of it on some level.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, from our perspective, we looked at what the Labor Party is doing and we said it's just dead wrong. It's too big and it's badly spent and someone has to stand up, not just for the taxpayers of today, but for the poor sods that are gonna have to pay this deficit and debt off for many years to come.

LEIGH SALES: Lindsay Tanner, in October, 2007, then Treasurer Peter Costello warned of a huge tsunami set to engulf global financial markets saying that the breakneck pace of the Chinese growth couldn't continue and that the US economy would be severely buffeted by the sub-prime crisis. He was the sole Australian politician to have that foresight. Wouldn't we all be better off now if he were running the economy?

LINDSAY TANNER: Leigh, I think I'd remind you that had any of us in Opposition made statements like that, we would have been pilloried. We have to be very careful as political leaders, but particularly in Opposition. You don't get the kind of leeway to make those kind of speculations. And I'd also suggest to you that that was a convenient message to talk up the Government's credentials for being the ones to handle that crisis that he was projecting. So, I don't think you should put too much emphasis on those comments. And he wasn't the only person around the world suggesting that we were in for serious problems. Particularly, the subprime crisis had started round about July/August of that year and people make these kind of predictions all the time. And what happens is of course that the ones that were wrong or miscued are often forgotten, the ones that appear to be accurate sometimes get overstated. So, yes, Peter Costello made those statements, but I'd also point to some of his track record as the Treasurer. And, in fact, the vulnerabilities that Australia now has, like a very big current account deficit, like lack of investment in infrastructure over 10 or 11 years all happened on his watch.

LEIGH SALES: They also had a very big surplus that they left you with that allowed you to raid to do this stimulus package.

LINDSAY TANNER: So, to suggest that he is now somehow the solution.

JOE HOCKEY: Lindsay's now channelling Kevin Rudd. It's all the neo-liberals, right? It's all the neo-liberals.

LINDSAY TANNER: When Australia was being drowned in money in the mining boom, the question the Australian people were asking was, "What investment are we getting for the future of our kids out of this money?" And the answer was: virtually nothing. Nothing on broadband, no reinvestment in our schools or universities, no investment in our health system. And that's the legacy that Peter Costello and John Howard left this nation. We're now trying to deal with that.

LEIGH SALES: Joe Hockey, one quick question to you before we go. Peter Costello has certainly had more to say on this issue in the past week than your current Treasury spokesman Julie Bishop. Will voters take your side seriously while your best batsman won't come out of the dressing room, officially?

JOE HOCKEY: Well, can I tell you he's been very much in the middle of the playing field in the last week.

LEIGH SALES: He's not on the frontbench.

JOE HOCKEY: Well, he's as frustrated as everyone who worked really hard to create a surplus, to leave the country debt-free. He and all of us are frustrated at seeing the Labor Party going to the old spirit of spend, spend, spend, don't worry about tomorrow. I mean, these guys are giving drunken sailors a bad name. I mean, they are seriously going hell for leather on the accelerator without any regard for the future impact. And Peter Costello, Julie Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey - the whole team is incredibly frustrated at what these guys are up to.

[turbo.vixen]

no more money nooooooooooo.......

[Ghosti]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/42b-stimulu...90213-86jw.html

"DING, Fries are done!"

[phantomchic]

Senate passes Kevin Rudd's $42bn stimulus package

THE $42 billion stimulus package has passed the Senate after a week of drawn-out negotiations between the Government and crossbenchers.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon today finally agreed to terms with the Government after talks with Treasurer Wayne Swan overnight and Friday morning and voted for the package.

The Government needed the support of all seven crossbenchers to push its package of six bills through parliament.

The Senate voted 30-28 to approve the package.

The House of Representatives has reconvened to put the final stamp on the package.

Senator Xenophon said he had "done my best" for the Murray and was confident the Government would not backslide on the deal.

"The Government has to deal with me for the next five and half years, and you'd think that they're well aware of that," he said.

"Given the current composition of the Senate for the next two and half years they need to come with me for legislation."

Senator Xenophon brushed off questions on the negotiations, saying: "As Shakespeare said, `All's well that ends well'."

He said he had spoken to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd once the agreement was finalised.

- Additional reporting: AAP

Link to table format of payments

ATO Link