Here’s a good visualisation of the data by SMH: http://j.mp/JZ8lKv
They also do a good ‘budget at a glance’ here, I’ll quickly quote it below:
SAVINGS
- Defence – $5.4 billion, over four years
- Scrapping promised company tax cut – $4.8 billion, over four years
- Foreign aid – $2.9 billion over four years
- Tighter superannuation concessions – $2.4 billion over four years
- More than 3000 public service jobs to go
SPENDING
- National Disability Insurance Scheme – $1 billion
- Schoolkids Bonus – $2.1 billion
- Boosting family tax benefits – $1.8 billion
- $3.7 billion for the aged to remain at home longer
- $1.5 billion over five years for remote jobs and community program
- $38.8 billion over four years to higher education with extra support for students from poor backgrounds.
FAMILIES
- $1.8 billion in tax breaks to Family Tax Benefit Part A
- Modest tax cut for those earning up to $80,000
- Extra $80 a week for parents of school children aged 16-19 and extra $820 for secondary school students and $410 for primary school students
- Superannuation guarantee rate rises to 12 per cent
ECONOMIC FORECAST
- $1.5 billion surplus in 2012-13, to rise to $7.5 billion by 2015-16
- Growth at 3 per cent in 2011-12
- Unemployment to remain at 5.5 per cent in the next two years
My thoughts: not as conservative as it could’ve been, but I guess that may be for the better. I remain sceptical that they’ll achieve the desired surplus purely because Europe’s in deep trouble and we may be headed into another global slowdown sooner than anticipated. The family tax benefits and schoolkid bonuses ARE to sugar-coat the impacts of the carbon tax and hopefully buy Labor some votes come election time. Conversely businesses won’t be happy they didn’t get their tax cuts, and I can imagine Labor knew the votes they’d be losing from high-income earners they probably didn’t have in the first place anyway.
One thing I found a bit absurd was how Swan all but promised interest rate cuts (which although likely, wouldn’t come about due to the budget). I also agree with sentiments that the budget is a bit ‘all over the place’ – why increase spending for dental particularly? Why were all the proposed infrastructure developments merely named without their economic benefit explained (railways are obvious, but a few others were hrmm)? And why DIDN’T he mention expected productivity even once, nor about whether the surplus is indeed achievable (a question he kept dodging during the interview)?
Oh but that interview was GOLDEN. Worth watching just that to be honest
Hockey didn’t exactly do himself a favour tonight…