Who thinks Rudd's idea will increase eco activity as desired.

[marbs]

I listened to hundreds of people lately, expressing their happiness at potentially receiving the impending $950.

But do we all think it will work?

I myself have doubts about the proposed plan, and think that Nelson isn't wrong in objecting to it. Rudd is spending to get out of this downturn, like the rest of the word. But, I don't think giving $950 is the right answer. For example. In my situation at the moment, I would save the money. I don't I am alone in this.

I think a better idea, would be to encourage more domestic travel. Eg. Subsidising airline costs, or free ticket vouchers for places around Australia. This would encourage more spending in the form of hotels, food, and entertainment as well as giving job opportunities for many. The government should also encourage international students to travel.

I think this would increase; Consumption and the employment rate, more than his proposed plan now.

What do we all think?

[costargh]

You should all remember that the $950 cash handouts are only a small component of the fiscal stimulus plan.

I'd rather be given money to use at MY discretion than allow the government to choose what they think WE need spending on.

[Edmund]

Maybe its not a good idea to hand out all the cash. Rudd seems to be assuming that the all people receiving the money will spend it.

[squance]

Thats seriously a lot of money to be giving out....
And after that, australia will be in deficit
And how would they fix the deficit thing? Raise taxes and crap?
I have no idea...

(but I still would like the 950 because I'm poor at the moment )

[costargh]

Maybe its not a good idea to hand out all the cash. Rudd seems to be assuming that the all people receiving the money will spend it.

I don't know why you'd assume that Rudd would assume that.  

[Edmund]

Hmm...all that money being given out could have been spent on public transport...

*sigh*

[suenoga]

You should all remember that the $950 cash handouts are only a small component of the fiscal stimulus plan.

I'd rather be given money to use at MY discretion than allow the government to choose what they think WE need spending on.

I don't understand what you mean. Does this mean you agree with the handouts as opposed to tax-cuts?

[Edmund]

Maybe its not a good idea to hand out all the cash. Rudd seems to be assuming that the all people receiving the money will spend it.

I don't know why you'd assume that Rudd would assume that.  

Prob Rudd was hoping everyone would spend the money to get the economy going lol...

I havent signed up for Centerlink yet, and I dont know how Im going to get any of the cash...

[costargh]

You should all remember that the $950 cash handouts are only a small component of the fiscal stimulus plan.

I'd rather be given money to use at MY discretion than allow the government to choose what they think WE need spending on.

I don't understand what you mean. Does this mean you agree with the handouts as opposed to tax-cuts?

My post had nothing to do with tax cuts. What I'm saying is that I'd rather the government give me money (in essence, return some of the money I've paid through taxes to them) to use at my own discretion than for the government to use the money that I've paid in taxes for spending on areas where THEY feel they should spend.

In essence, I'm trying to say that by giving money back to the people you are allowing market forces to work properly whereby people choose which goods and services they require.

[costargh]

Lets turn this around and see what people here think when you look at what's really going on.

Where does the majority of Government revenue come from? Direct taxes.

In fact, ~50% of government revenue is from personal income tax. Quite a chunk of your hard earned cash goes into the government's coffers.

So if the government decided to give low income earners $950 back of their own money then why is this such a big deal? I'd suspect (without knowing the composition of the $42 billion package) that the majority of what is putting the government into deficit is the other govenment measures in the $42 billion stimulus package such as:

# Free ceiling insulation for around 2.7 million Australian homes
Oh thank-you. Because the market is really screaming out for free ceiling insulation.

# Build or upgrade a building in every one of Australia’s 9,540 schools
I dont mind this as much although it seems like they don't really care what this money is going towards specifically.

# Build more than 20,000 new social and defence homes
This amounts to welfare and social security spending.


So why are people kicking up a fuss that we are being given a choice as to what we get to spend OUR money on? Would you rather the government choose what you need?


I know that the $950 isn't equally distributed back to tax payers. i.e Jim may have paid $1500 tax but Mary only paid $600 tax but eitherway in some ways you're getting some of your tax back.

Like I've said, I think the majority of spending is actually on the building of schools and stuff however I could be wrong.

[costargh]

Yeh I'd prefer that policy actually, in terms of fairness. But I'd rather the $950 than the government spending this money on whatever they think people need.

Disclaimer: I recognise that the government has an important role and some aspects of government spending are inevitable. I believe there are areas where more government spending is required but I'm not sure whether the government can be trusted in allocating the right amount of funding per area.

[costargh]

See, with the school buildings... I don't get why it has to be spent on a building.

What if a school had perfectly fine buildings but was in desperate need of new desks and chairs for its students or new sporting equipment or new books for the library.

In this way the government is basically saying that regardless of what you NEED we are going to tell you what you need (although they are giving schools quite a bit of slack with what sort of building they can choose).

[costargh]

My theory is that the government wants every school to get a new building because to the community they can 'visualise' so called 'improvements' being made even if the new building isn't the number 1 priority for the school.

[brendan]

increase eco activity compared to what and why should econ activity matter?

The government could go around breaking everyone's windows. That would increase economic activity.

[costargh]

The money is being spent on buildings because jobs are expected to be lost in the construction industry.  So more buildings need to be built but the only way the government can guarantee that without building pointless buildings is by adding buildings to schools.  And since they barely spend any money on education, they figure the buildings must be pretty dilapidated and people won't argue too much.

I sort of gathered that they want schools building buildings because of the weakening construction industusty.......... lol

But does that justify the government choosing to tell schools what their priorities are?

I know why the government is taking these actions... but I'm asking why do we accept them?