https://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/conte ... ndix_d.htm
gergreg wrote: ↑
December 22, 2018, 11:56 am
The Australian Labor party controls the world economy?
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I have googled a word copy of a more updated one which shows $10B deficit last year which is a dramatic improvement on where we have been and then improving estimates. Oddly enough it appears the govt did better then estimated.
I found this one to be a good graph of showing when governments spend more money then they have.
You will notice a few things:-
The coalition have been pretty garbage over the past 5-6 years, although they certainly havent been worse then labor I think a fair assessment would be that they reached peak bad with labor and then started reigning it in. But again no business would certainly trumpet the coalitions results as a great result.
Labors six years before that was just horrendous, when you look at what was happening before they got in. Their spending jumped from 271B to 316B yes thats billion with a B, in one year (45B and thenup 20B the next year). As for blaming the global economy govt receipts or sales only dropped $2b and then $b the next year by the time the labor rot had really crept in.
To give Labor a bit of credit, in their final year in power they did manage to decrease spending by 4B but that was after seeing govt spending go from 271B to 371B in just four years.
The Coalition in comparison havent been sounds economic managers by any sense of the word, and imo a sound economic manager in a business sense spends less money then they bring in, or at the very least ends up about even over the life of there term, any other business would go broke. Similar to labor they have a shocking first year with a blame it on the old govt trick blowing out spending by 367B to 406B a whopping 39B increase, however after they tend to reign in the increases in spending to 6b increase and 13b increase the next year. Unlike Labor they do not have a year where they can say that they actualy decreased spending year on year. Though I have to wonder how much they may have fudged there figures to make there first year look bad, blame it on labor which actually was a lot to do with bringing back spending from labors last year or bringing forward stuff from there second year.
Eitherway its pretty clear that although the coalition have been bad they have clearly been better then the ALP.
Then you look at the map historically:-
Pretty good surplus after surplus in the howard years
90-97 all look pretty bad though this looks to me more due to a drop in tax revenue over 90-92 and not really recovering, you can hardly say keating / hawke spent worse then howard as spending seemed to increase at a relatively consistent rate, except to say the govt appeared to be much better from 94-97 in terms of not increasing their spending then 90-93.
Which brings us to labors glory days per the budget 87 - 90 Labor actually managed to deliver three surpluses, 2 of which while the economy was shrinking, which puts balls to the idea that a govt must necessary waste money when the economy is on a downturn. Labor managed to do the exact opposite.
83-87 not labors glory years, they manage to turn a 300m surplus into a 3b deficit in there first year. At that time 3B is of a 48B total spend so about 6% of their total budget not quite as horrendous as what we have seen recently but still pretty **** then growing that spending pie by a little under 10% year on year, not glory days at all.
From 75 - 83 you have 3 successive coalition govts and on any analysis they were garbage (far worse then the labor party to come). They inherited a surplus budget and ran a bunch of deficits with growing spending in every single year. Credit to them they delivered a surplus on their last year. Though I am always suspicious of the numbers in a govts first and last year in govt.
72-75 you have the whitlam years. Which despite free uni, were all positive years. credit to labor. It must be said that spending did grow massively, but then so did the taxes collected.
70-72 you have coalition years, john gorton, seemingly less spending growth, but similar to the whitlam year all surpluses with spending and income moving up at a similar pace.
Then there is no more data.