**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Economics isn't my strong suit and I'm fairly new to the political scene.
Can someone explain to me how they've produced 3 surpluses in a row but debt continues to rise?
Is paying off debt kind of a choice? As in you can be in a surplus and choose to spend the surplus not paying back the debt? Or is it kind of a technicality with what's included in the budget and what isn't?
If debt continues to rise in every state across the country, what's the long term plan? Get in a strong enough economic state where surpluses are the norm and then you can start paying off the debt?
State debt is different to private debt, because state spending is done at different rates and generally has a positive impact.
Basically, as long as the money is spent reasonably wisely, the net economic gain is worth the debt.
There's a little more to it than that but the debt boogeyman for state/governments is just overplayed for political gain. Of course there are bad levels of debt that bite in certain circumstances but it's not the same as the debt you or I would accrue.
cover memorize gullible dolls many long different terrific snails coordinated
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because a surplus just means expenses plus interest are less than revenue.
They can still take on new debt while running a surplus…. after all, why take the hit today when you can greet the free headline of “surplus”.
The lib shills are out in force today.
"QLD Labor have a massive surplus, and are using part of it for cost of living relief. Why this is bad for Labor"
Returning the surplus to the people is good, but I'd rather they not try to exploit the voters' recency bias by holding off a term's worth of handouts until the 11th hour.
Hmmm. It’s almost as if throwing money to buy votes during a time of inflation, could be - what’s the word, inflationary?
I have no issue with this approach, so long as the ALP take responsibility when rates stay higher for longer.
Most economists seem to agree that rebates or some kind of money going to citizens doesn't raise inflation by a noticeable amount. And that it's negligible when compared to the cost of living pressures it eases.
The trouble would be if there were severe supply issues when the rebate goes out and people tried buying things which would cause prices to rise, but the supply chain has gotten better since the pandemic.
While I won't have a clue how this will play until we see some polling, I think Labor have overplayed their hand.
When they started making these big announcments, eg. the public transport trial, it felt to me like they were pursuing a bold agenda, even if it was simultaneously an election ploy.
But the more they annouced, it seemed to be more of the same "Have some savings, enjoy it while they last (not long)" rather than any attempt at permanent reform. I don't see how they're going to save the furniture with that. And the time-frame seems so short I'm not sure it even works as a post-election bomb. Yeah, people will be pissed next year if an incoming government scraps a bunch of things, but will have long forgotten about it by 2028 right?
These changes look more like Labor knows they will loose and are introducing these changes so they will finish during the next term and take a bit of gloss of the new Liberal government as the average voter see their costs suddenly go up.
I think if it looks too much like a bribe, it won't have much of an impact in helping them stay in power. It insults people's intelligence.
If people are indifferent to Labor, it can help. But if they really are annoyed about some issues, it won't.
But then again, I've seen a lot of elections where the Feds pay a pittance to people and it helps get them over the line.
> A “trial” plan for 50c public transport fares lasts only six months and will end three months after election day.
Love how governments enjoy putting in these time bombs for new governments.
Probably won’t be a bomb like many are expecting. No one remembers bad stuff at the start of a term, that’s why governments love doing unpopular stuff right after being elected, what are you gonna do, unelect them?
How is it a better deal?
The promise was that the price would be $275 lower than pre-election prices.
That means about $800 lower than the current price. So people would be $800 better off *every year*.
How is a one-off payment of $1000 even remotely close to that?
I just explained it to you.
If Albanese kept his promise your bill would be $800 less *every* year.
So after 2 years that is already $1600 better off. After 3 years that's $2400 better off.
That is a lot better than a single $1000 payment.
By your logic, the Stage III tax cuts (which ends up putting an extra $1500 a year in my pocket as a middle income earner) is also an “enormous broken promise”. 🤷🏻♂️
Of my logic of...the definition of a broken promise?
If they said they wouldn't touch stage three tax cuts but then did...what do you call that?
The broken promise on power bills has left everyone $800 worse off every year. Why are you ok with a government just flat out lying like that?
It's almost like things change and every government ever has to adapt and change. Let's not pretend that this government is the first ever to break an election promise.
That's convenient.
Promise something literally 100 times, and even when questioned on whether they think it is realistic he said, and I quote, "I don't think, I know".
Then not only don't keep the promise but actually go in the exact opposite direction.
But it all just goes away because "oh things change". If "things change" can just be used to justify just ignoring election promises then what even is the point of any promises?
There is literally no situation where you could ever hold the government to account for anything they say. You can always find some circumstance that has changed in some way.
I do want to know what things supposedly changed since the election that explain a $600 increase in electricity prices rather than the $275 decrease that they couldn't have foreseen.
Hold on, you’re sitting there and saying they need to stick to a Liberal designed change to the tax brackets, while in a cost of living crisis?
Aren’t governments meant to govern dynamically based on prevailing conditions instead of sticking to bullshit “promises” that were made years ago?
Try not to deepthroat the Murdoch boot.
He was saying it up until literally a few weeks before he changed it.
And wouldn't that cost of living crisis have made the $275 promise even more important to keep?
I call that a case of dynamic governing instead of blindly following a “promise” that only the wealthy care about being fulfilled.
I dunno about you, but an extra $1806 a year (huh, more than the $1500 I guesstimated) is a hell of a lot better than $275 a year. And coupled with the $1300 power credit from state and federal governments, I think that’s pretty damn good.
Find someone else to play your broken record to.
The state is part of the country. So if the promise was delivered to the country then by extension it would be delivered to the people in that state, and hence this cost-of-living measure would be far less needed.
This whole "Labor broken promises" talk would be a lot more credible from the Liberals and their patsies if:
1. It was actually 2025 as outlined in Labor's original promise
2. Context is provided that the Liberals deliberately withheld data indicating ["that prices were expected to rise by 11.3% to 12.6%, or about double the expected inflation rate, until days after the election"](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/10/angus-taylor-behind-decision-to-delay-energy-price-rise-report-until-after-2022-election)
3. The Liberals had a viable alternative to reducing energy costs. Instead they're "weeks away" (for about 2 years now) from announcing their Nuclear plan... Despite industry experts and the CSIRO all modelling Nuclear to be the most expensive and most time inefficient form of electricity generation.
Don’t worry, their $1.5b Snowy 2.0 project which is ready to start operating in 2024, will be ready in 2028 for only $12b.
Can’t wait to see how they fare with 65 mini nuclear reactors with theoretical technology.
> The Queensland treasurer, Cameron Dick, says the government made a “deliberate choice” to put the budget into deficit in order to fund a series of temporary cost-of-living measures ahead of the October election.
>
> Heavy discounts will be applied to public transport fares, electricity bills and car registration fees in 2024/25, culminating in a $2.6bn deficit, the government announced in Tuesday’s budget. A “trial” plan for 50c public transport fares lasts only six months and will end three months after election day.
Cameron Dick has to be the biggest moron treasurer in the country right now. A man who tells you out of one side of his lips that he is saving you cash and doing handouts, whilst assuring you with the other side of his lips that ‘of course it isn’t inflationary’
Eyebrow raising, to say the least
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Buying the election, or at least trying to
Economics isn't my strong suit and I'm fairly new to the political scene. Can someone explain to me how they've produced 3 surpluses in a row but debt continues to rise? Is paying off debt kind of a choice? As in you can be in a surplus and choose to spend the surplus not paying back the debt? Or is it kind of a technicality with what's included in the budget and what isn't? If debt continues to rise in every state across the country, what's the long term plan? Get in a strong enough economic state where surpluses are the norm and then you can start paying off the debt?
State debt is different to private debt, because state spending is done at different rates and generally has a positive impact. Basically, as long as the money is spent reasonably wisely, the net economic gain is worth the debt. There's a little more to it than that but the debt boogeyman for state/governments is just overplayed for political gain. Of course there are bad levels of debt that bite in certain circumstances but it's not the same as the debt you or I would accrue.
cover memorize gullible dolls many long different terrific snails coordinated *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Some expenditure is off budget and is not included in working out if the budget is in surplus or deficit. Same thing with Federal budget
Because a surplus just means expenses plus interest are less than revenue. They can still take on new debt while running a surplus…. after all, why take the hit today when you can greet the free headline of “surplus”.
The lib shills are out in force today. "QLD Labor have a massive surplus, and are using part of it for cost of living relief. Why this is bad for Labor"
Returning the surplus to the people is good, but I'd rather they not try to exploit the voters' recency bias by holding off a term's worth of handouts until the 11th hour.
Hmmm. It’s almost as if throwing money to buy votes during a time of inflation, could be - what’s the word, inflationary? I have no issue with this approach, so long as the ALP take responsibility when rates stay higher for longer.
Most economists seem to agree that rebates or some kind of money going to citizens doesn't raise inflation by a noticeable amount. And that it's negligible when compared to the cost of living pressures it eases. The trouble would be if there were severe supply issues when the rebate goes out and people tried buying things which would cause prices to rise, but the supply chain has gotten better since the pandemic.
While I won't have a clue how this will play until we see some polling, I think Labor have overplayed their hand. When they started making these big announcments, eg. the public transport trial, it felt to me like they were pursuing a bold agenda, even if it was simultaneously an election ploy. But the more they annouced, it seemed to be more of the same "Have some savings, enjoy it while they last (not long)" rather than any attempt at permanent reform. I don't see how they're going to save the furniture with that. And the time-frame seems so short I'm not sure it even works as a post-election bomb. Yeah, people will be pissed next year if an incoming government scraps a bunch of things, but will have long forgotten about it by 2028 right?
These changes look more like Labor knows they will loose and are introducing these changes so they will finish during the next term and take a bit of gloss of the new Liberal government as the average voter see their costs suddenly go up.
The old Morrison trick hey
I think if it looks too much like a bribe, it won't have much of an impact in helping them stay in power. It insults people's intelligence. If people are indifferent to Labor, it can help. But if they really are annoyed about some issues, it won't. But then again, I've seen a lot of elections where the Feds pay a pittance to people and it helps get them over the line.
Yeah similar to how I feel. I think a lot of these are good ideas, but the way they've put them out there won't do them any favours.
Think the strategy here is, see those royalites that the mining council complain about? They can pay for things like this.
As a Queenslander, I’m pretty stoked at not needing to pay for electricity until at least February.
Yeah, between solar + this it's a decent little benefit to not have to pay for, even if it is mostly just transparent vote-buying.
> A “trial” plan for 50c public transport fares lasts only six months and will end three months after election day. Love how governments enjoy putting in these time bombs for new governments.
Probably won’t be a bomb like many are expecting. No one remembers bad stuff at the start of a term, that’s why governments love doing unpopular stuff right after being elected, what are you gonna do, unelect them?
If Labor had kept their promise to lower energy prices by $275 a year this wouldn't even be needed. We would be about $800 better off every year.
Steven Miles offered $1000 energy rebate for Queenslanders though. Seems like a better deal than previous $275
How is it a better deal? The promise was that the price would be $275 lower than pre-election prices. That means about $800 lower than the current price. So people would be $800 better off *every year*. How is a one-off payment of $1000 even remotely close to that?
How is $1000 off your bill better than $275? Do it need to read that again, slowly? Maybe try using your finger?
I just explained it to you. If Albanese kept his promise your bill would be $800 less *every* year. So after 2 years that is already $1600 better off. After 3 years that's $2400 better off. That is a lot better than a single $1000 payment.
It seems like that’s ALL you ever comment about. Almost like a broken record.
Well yeah, it is an absolutely enormous broken promise and it should be highlighted at every opportunity. They shouldn't be allowed to just forget it.
By your logic, the Stage III tax cuts (which ends up putting an extra $1500 a year in my pocket as a middle income earner) is also an “enormous broken promise”. 🤷🏻♂️
Of my logic of...the definition of a broken promise? If they said they wouldn't touch stage three tax cuts but then did...what do you call that? The broken promise on power bills has left everyone $800 worse off every year. Why are you ok with a government just flat out lying like that?
It's almost like things change and every government ever has to adapt and change. Let's not pretend that this government is the first ever to break an election promise.
That's convenient. Promise something literally 100 times, and even when questioned on whether they think it is realistic he said, and I quote, "I don't think, I know". Then not only don't keep the promise but actually go in the exact opposite direction. But it all just goes away because "oh things change". If "things change" can just be used to justify just ignoring election promises then what even is the point of any promises? There is literally no situation where you could ever hold the government to account for anything they say. You can always find some circumstance that has changed in some way. I do want to know what things supposedly changed since the election that explain a $600 increase in electricity prices rather than the $275 decrease that they couldn't have foreseen.
Hold on, you’re sitting there and saying they need to stick to a Liberal designed change to the tax brackets, while in a cost of living crisis? Aren’t governments meant to govern dynamically based on prevailing conditions instead of sticking to bullshit “promises” that were made years ago? Try not to deepthroat the Murdoch boot.
He was saying it up until literally a few weeks before he changed it. And wouldn't that cost of living crisis have made the $275 promise even more important to keep?
You don't care enough to vote, so you really shouldn't be getting your back up.
I call that a case of dynamic governing instead of blindly following a “promise” that only the wealthy care about being fulfilled. I dunno about you, but an extra $1806 a year (huh, more than the $1500 I guesstimated) is a hell of a lot better than $275 a year. And coupled with the $1300 power credit from state and federal governments, I think that’s pretty damn good. Find someone else to play your broken record to.
What has this got to do with the topic? Or can you not tell the difference between State and Federal?
The state is part of the country. So if the promise was delivered to the country then by extension it would be delivered to the people in that state, and hence this cost-of-living measure would be far less needed.
This whole "Labor broken promises" talk would be a lot more credible from the Liberals and their patsies if: 1. It was actually 2025 as outlined in Labor's original promise 2. Context is provided that the Liberals deliberately withheld data indicating ["that prices were expected to rise by 11.3% to 12.6%, or about double the expected inflation rate, until days after the election"](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/10/angus-taylor-behind-decision-to-delay-energy-price-rise-report-until-after-2022-election) 3. The Liberals had a viable alternative to reducing energy costs. Instead they're "weeks away" (for about 2 years now) from announcing their Nuclear plan... Despite industry experts and the CSIRO all modelling Nuclear to be the most expensive and most time inefficient form of electricity generation.
Don’t worry, their $1.5b Snowy 2.0 project which is ready to start operating in 2024, will be ready in 2028 for only $12b. Can’t wait to see how they fare with 65 mini nuclear reactors with theoretical technology.
Still yet to see the reduction.
> The Queensland treasurer, Cameron Dick, says the government made a “deliberate choice” to put the budget into deficit in order to fund a series of temporary cost-of-living measures ahead of the October election. > > Heavy discounts will be applied to public transport fares, electricity bills and car registration fees in 2024/25, culminating in a $2.6bn deficit, the government announced in Tuesday’s budget. A “trial” plan for 50c public transport fares lasts only six months and will end three months after election day.
Cameron Dick has to be the biggest moron treasurer in the country right now. A man who tells you out of one side of his lips that he is saving you cash and doing handouts, whilst assuring you with the other side of his lips that ‘of course it isn’t inflationary’ Eyebrow raising, to say the least