Thread: tax cuts or infrastructure spending

Infrastructure deterioration rates is a fantastic topic. The modeling that can be achieved now is incredible but basically once the deterioration of certain types of infrastructure has begun, the damage (Cost) VS time rises exponentially. Obviously this is dependant on materials, climate, soil types, type & level of use.

I would love to see tax cut money for (higher income earners, low income earners can keep their much needed tax cuts) spent on infrastructure.

If a an effective maintenance program is achieved, the overall life costs of the infrastructure will be less to the public, than if it is neglected as most public (non influential) assets are.

But as said, this style of tax/income spend doesn't appeal to the average person and is therefore not seen as a benefit in comparison to the population receiving 0.01% of nothing back in their pockets.

I would love more tax $$$ in my pocket, but at the end of the day humans are greedy, money will never voluntarily be given to infrastructure development from the population. I am happy to see it be spent in infrastructure.

Although i am biased, this style of Government spending will suit my future career

Dave.

Originally Posted by Outback 1

at least our cars won't be bothered too much by potholes my only concern is that for starters if we get the cuts and they drive interest rates up the poor old battlers will be worse off than they are now!also it's only a promise not a guarantee!

Would that be a "core" promise LOL

Agree with you though, for a country that is experiencing "good" times there are far too many struggling

I don't care much for the tax cuts. What I do care for is my family is looked after if they need to go to hospital, my kids get good schooling and when they grow up they may be able to buy a house. I'd sacrifice $20 a week if a goverment could guarantee this.

I voted for the funds to go back into infrastructure. What I would object to though, is that infrastructure being sold off in the future which seems to have become the trend.

Truthfully, the tax break is probably a marketing device for the upcoming election only.

BTW, I was also interested in the comment that long term means 3 years. Sadly it's probably too true and perhaps the tax break could be spent producing an Australian vision for the future and installing leadership to provide this which is binding to any party that becomes elected.

an economist was asked how the tax cuts would affect the economy..

"the govt has it's foot on the accelerator and the Reserve Bank has it's foot on the brake. No wonder Australia is smoking"

Originally Posted by rick130

an economist was asked how the tax cuts would affect the economy..

"the govt has it's foot on the accelerator and the Reserve Bank has it's foot on the brake. No wonder Australia is smoking"

i would like to see our kids being able to afford to buy {and pay for }a house. The way it's going now the only way they will get one is to inherit it!

if we get more tax cuts - fine in the short term, but no good in the long term, typical pollies!!!

more income more increases spending, increases inflation, increases borrowing - SO we will be paying for it in the future.

Just my 10c worth

LRH

and would prefer to have free Doctors appointments, better public education, improved roads / trains etc

LRH