来源：新足迹 作者：黑山老妖
+ i; \: x, o7 d; G
/ T. d$ a! ^# d) }8 a2008-2009中央政府财政年度的财政预算将在2008年5月13日公布。6 P6 W# z5 ]6 e( ^; G5 }: H
这是工党上台后，总理Kevin Rudd和财长Wayne Swan的第一个财政预算。* |! h2 q2 {0 N8 z5 h/ P
这次预算是一个非常艰难的预算。财长需要考虑到各方面的因素有：! W, l) h0 i9 C, K: c
1。工党上台前的各种承诺。比如减税等等。。。。
1 {  [8 n$ V0 r8 `6 t2。通膨持续高位运作，导致央行提升利率。如何压制通货膨胀。。。. @9 E3 R/ c' u8 X* {, n5 ?
3。为了压制通膨，政府势必要裁减开支。如何尽可能的把裁减做到最合理化呢？
: [1 U" |; W8 K& n/ l) M! }* w4。自由党下台前几年开始政府预算就有大额盈余。今年的盈余会达到历史新高。有预计说最高可能达到200亿。如何合理运用盈余而不被诟病？' G& i: i8 [6 e; v8 l
5。虽然澳洲经济还是过热但是世界经济处于危机四起的情况下。如何平衡发展和不受世界经济拖累。
  u! m9 c3 R* g! l6。失业率持续保持在历史性低位，如何让更多的人参与到工作中去？如何解决劳工短缺呢？
3 b) _7 g: H: ?4 m上面这些都是现任政府必须马上面对的现实。4 h1 w/ |7 X4 S! V8 l3 S
随着5月13日的临近，和以往一样一些细节开始被慢慢的泄漏出来了。其中不少是官泄。
8 x; p6 X  H4 S  k2 k! s到底这些政策是什么呢？对我们这些小市民会有什么影响？

财政预算2008系列(1) - 个人所得税之医疗课税) @2 b' R' c) E
7 t4 |3 z$ u: U) y4 s
据最新泄露出来的报道说2008年的财政预算将对医疗课税大幅改革。
6 u* s7 K6 Z: w" Q原来收入达到每年$16,740开始征收Medicare Levy，到$19,694征收全额medicare levey。从新的财政年度起征收medicare levey的起点会在原基础上翻一倍。
" \% G- Y0 D2 h6 Z, z原来未婚、无受抚养的家属的人士收入超过$50,000，或者家庭收入超过$100,000，如果没有购买私人医疗保险就要征收1%的medicare surcharge。从新的财政年度起这些起点都会增加$50,000。即：原来未婚、无受抚养的家属的人士收入超过$100,000，或者家庭收入超过 $150,000，如果没有购买私人医疗保险就要征收1%的medicare surcharge。按照新的算法，单身30岁以下年收入在$50,000－$100,000的人士可以不用买私人医疗保险就而且可以免去 medicare surcharge。节省了最多$1000一年。家庭可以最多节省$1500一年。2 F' c! _4 X3 F* ?* @& ]! \
5 Q  o( Y" h1 y0 C4 h7 D# u
但是原来私人医疗保险超过30岁的年龄附加额依然保留。即如果到三十岁还不买私人医疗保险那么每一年都要比基本保费多缴2%，最多可以达到70％。
/ y  M- F: K" r# m1 _  J" z- ~% L  P- |: j% `2 x7 v1 C
Medicare shake-up could benefit millions引用:: c, \+ F/ ~. A" }' \, ~' ~0 `

Millions of Australians are set to benefit from a Medicare overhaul when the Rudd government hands down its first federal budget on Tuesday.
- y; T2 |4 p& x6 G  s& Q5 p
" G7 ?5 S  ?. c9 X) S/ G6 \/ CThe shake-up will double the income threshold at which the Medicare levy kicks in, which is currently set at $16,740 and then phases out at $19,694, Fairfax newspapers report.
8 I' m3 E; ^- ~( N  g/ Z
0 ?6 E, a. C9 }The same goes for the income threshold under which workers are required to take out private health cover or be hit with an additional Medicare surcharge.
; _" Y, q  Y' H4 n4 F: Y
# S3 T; R8 m& A* ?( P& }' Z' R+ q3 V( HThe $50,000 income limit for singles without dependents, set 11 years ago, will rise to $100,000, News Limited reports.) D1 R, }# _6 I: U
: ^! j4 q/ R3 F
The income level for couples will rise from $100,000 to $150,000, and means a total of 2.4 million taxpayers will be exempted from the surcharge under the changes.% _' X; Y7 z7 ?" G
! R! A9 C1 _0 u- D2 K# V
Singles without private health insurance could be up to $1000 a year better off, while uninsured couples stand to save up to $1500.$ c; n5 A0 D; h- _
5 o) v, f. a6 e+ @
Although uninsured young adults will gain most from the policy, it is likely to encourage under-30s to drop health insurance until age-based penalties come into effect at 31, Fairfax reports." J! W% N; L( B3 d3 ?2 T, s) D

; Z" S; V5 v! X, d" c6 gThe changes will be outlined in federal Treasurer Wayne Swan's budget announcement on Tuesday and will take effect on July 1.% v$ y5 o' G6 O0 I$ e! E

+ d" \5 S0 o7 c; k- j! K; {Private health funds are expected to criticise the changes, News Limited and Fairfax report.

4 d5 T4 l# d7 g8 A7 z  B% j. o0 H5 {9 }! R
; I% p# f) ]8 f# Q. P
[ 本帖最后由 Magaziner 于 2008-5-21 14:41 编辑 ]

财政预算2008系列(2) - 豪华车征税从25％增加到33％0 D5 U2 {: i: `: Q! K* C
* P9 m0 Q! D0 l8 E; G% Y
根据规定新车价格如果超过$57,000属于豪华车。澳洲每年豪华车销量大约有10万5千辆，每年车辆总销量的10％左右。绝大部分豪华车是进口的。
: n( {3 h; L& H& y, p( |8 ]
" }) X3 t7 r) F1 Q! e1 N$ I6 W目前政府对豪华车征收25%奢侈税。新财政预算会对豪华车征收的税率提高到33％。4 |) M/ p3 _; w& y
- S* M+ M( ?: e& m) B% e
财长Wayne Swan说，这几年来高收入者受惠于最高个人税收的减少所以买豪华车多付点钱也是应该的。比如说：S-type Jaguar会因为新的税率而比原来贵$2,600。  H2 N/ K/ Y9 R& n7 J% |+ {

# G* {- |! Y$ t' S7 F" C要买好车(价格超过过$57,000)的人要赶快点了。过了7月1日就要涨价了。( O- W' e3 F( N; U
4 H4 V4 U( W. v& ], i! [5 O& R; q
Tax on luxury cars fair: Swan引用:
+ H( y2 j, U7 {, {

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan says an increase in tax on luxury cars is fair because people who buy them can afford it.# _! |- f) u: z! h9 ?7 G. }9 Y
The tax increase - from 25 per cent to 33 per cent - to be introduced in Mr Swan's first budget on Tuesday, will affect cars priced over $57,000 - estimated to be about 105,000 car sales per year.
2 @8 M4 x0 w: Y3 n6 w" X4 _Mr Swan said the budget was a big savings exercise after the unsustainable spending of the previous government.
& Y% d4 m! @$ O" C9 V"We don't think it is unreasonable for people who have done well in recent years from government decisions in terms of top-end tax cuts, just pay a little more for a luxury car," Mr Swan told the Nine Network.) n! v3 D6 d: J  J
"What we are dealing with here is about 10 per cent of cars, most of them are imported."
/ |- L6 B! Z* z4 ^+ t. l/ t. zHe said, for example, the tax would add about $2,600 to the price of an S-type Jaguar.
$ S8 A3 g; v+ c* T( |* |In other pre-Budget announcements, the Government yesterday said it would double the income trigger point at which the Medicare levy surcharge kicks in for singles - from $50,000 to $100,000 - and has rejected claims the move will put added pressure on the public health sector and insurance premiums.
) M' E, r" c5 V# O& ^9 E; o9 W2 ]: s5 A9 p$ ^9 t- q
AAP

8 e( H2 v7 ~" V! ?- `

6 P& U& x7 C# S+ J' m[ 本帖最后由 Magaziner 于 2008-5-21 14:42 编辑 ]

财政预算2008系列(3) - 医疗拨款大增
9 v  N2 P0 c# n  u5 ]  g/ t
' h+ {' J6 [. u8 {明天的财政预算包含的额外公共医疗拨款将远远超过工党上台前承诺的30亿。但是政府消息来源指出这和降低medicare surcharge的起征点没有关系。* ~- `; i3 G" K7 E) g. `5 J
+ Q  n' h1 f9 V0 i) E' s
财长Wayne Swan说：“我们有一个非常充足的措施去为公共医疗投资。这是我们这个政府的一个非常、非常优先考虑的方面。”2 s, [/ G1 W" Z$ b; ]. Q2 m4 _5 g3 U- s

7 A+ {) A8 t/ w8 L$ q增加医疗投入的一个方法是增加《健康和医疗投资基金》的拨款。去年8月霍华德政府拨款25亿建立了这个基金。基金的受益将用于支付场所、器材和治疗等等费用。今年7月将会把受益投入使用。
1 h; y5 m  Y+ R4 R1 ^0 `2 W3 o4 v2 {- w( N5 e' I* X! |
另外一个方法是把钱放到由Kim Beazley于2006年6月提出的《澳洲建设基金》。近期有报告支出所有的预算盈余会被放到这个基金里面用于基础建设和其他包括医疗在内的重要项目中。霍华德政府确立的《高等教育基金》可能也会被重组到这个基金里面。
) q6 N9 N% `4 ?# s9 F5 B2 ?% @' Z: m. K9 I( W6 y3 D
但是悉尼晨报收到消息说今年的一部分盈余会被放到《未来基金》中。《未来基金》的目的是为了补贴政府预期到2020年会短缺的1480亿的政府部门和军队公积金。
6 f/ O9 `0 U8 [7 X: U% S9 t% H- ~* v( E# d/ k2 J1 n3 T/ G
Funding boon for the sick " [1 s, V0 T0 f1 Q  V6 `. M  W. S8 Q
引用:

Phillip Coorey Chief Political Correspondent
6 q7 s& ^% d- X8 j: YMay 12, 2008
+ |6 e( u1 a( b4 G- r8 l6 P4 x2 _2 w- B/ f1 C% q5 {: J
TOMORROW'S federal budget is expected to contain far more funding for public health than the almost $3 billion in measures Labor promised before the election.
! \" h/ w+ P* e8 i. i# F) d8 J
( ^8 V4 R% D2 I) W. ~. vBut Government sources say the decision to increase funding is not linked to the separate budget measure that will allow more than 2 million people to opt out of private health insurance without penalty.9 G4 f7 N8 L( b+ W
; T! ~- a. ^3 Z/ e7 h" ]
Critics say doubling the income level at which the Medicare surcharge kicks in will put more pressure on the public system, but a Labor insider said the Government refused to accept this as a given., }$ f: y% a" z- Y. Z& S

1 \2 N" w; Q+ `* f"We have a very substantial package of measures to invest in public health in this budget," the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said yesterday. "It is a very, very high priority for the Government."
; ?3 I4 H/ E7 w2 M3 f* w7 \* T- {' B" {# A$ K
One possible method of delivering the increased finding would be to use a portion of the budget surplus to expand the Health and Medical Investment Fund. The Howard government announced the fund in August to pay for new facilities, equipment and treatment and allocated $2.5 billion from the 2006-07 budget surplus. Its earnings were to be distributed from July 1 next year.
4 I' m  Q, F# p( R; r: S6 O. Y7 t; g. g4 K1 U
The Minister for Finance, Lindsay Tanner, told the Herald last week: "We made a commitment to follow through on that." It is understood it may be increased significantly.
2 j" B% T" U; N) L' O2 w" q6 o! e3 D; H% ?9 C% ~
Other speculation centres on the Building Australia Fund, first promised by Kim Beazley in May 2006.- ^5 ?# O5 m! T4 v

, J+ p" v/ ^( I1 N, @9 JRecent reports have suggested the entire budget surplus will be placed into this fund and used for a variety of infrastructure and other priorities, including health. The $6 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund, which the Howard government established for universities, could be rolled into the Building Australia Fund.
: `3 `8 e6 j4 ~6 Q! ^$ p9 ^" ^
5 Z: W# ]$ O# ~# Y# _' p" J& OBut the Herald has learned some of this financial year's surplus will be used to top up the Future Fund, established by the former government to meet the $148 billion superannuation liability for public servants and the military by 2020.
# o/ t7 z' V+ }" H
/ D/ j/ K* c' I2 I: ILast year's budget gave to the fund $7 billion from the surplus and the proceeds from the sale of the final tranche of Telstra. These were supposed to be the final contributions, but more will be needed this year.5 C' R* u8 a8 J9 }# Z& s$ U0 N

. m8 v5 [# O3 JThe Government also announced yesterday that it would raise the tax on luxury cars. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries said the tax should have been abolished, not increased.4 \3 c7 k. Q+ M3 U( _

5 g( i2 Q1 G! g1 ~( P. j+ }It will not apply until July 1, allowing prospective buyers a small window before prices rise by $500 for a $65,000 car and $15,000 for a $300,000 Porsche.
) V' s4 P  _' y+ ^6 i( m6 k: h  I' N/ W
Mr Swan, who likes the Robin Hood imagery but will not admit it, had little sympathy.
: |& Y1 d; z  a$ x( ]
5 w5 g: c1 N9 s3 C"When we're making our savings, some people who have done very well in recent years can afford to make a contribution," Mr Swan said.$ v8 O  g# D- p" U7 b& w. H( j0 q
5 `& a" F+ R4 R1 i
"We don't think it's unreasonable that people who have done well in recent years, particularly from government decisions in terms of top-end tax cuts, just pay a little more for a luxury car."
* p3 y: ], }) P. Y
# F9 s& w0 _7 }7 }* {# Z- xMr Tanner said those on higher incomes would still get tax cuts this budget.( J) o3 Z) Q- T6 p

( w5 s8 u/ ?! O% U) b& l  q# s2 {He said the Government was "trying to take a bit of the froth off demand" to relieve pressure on inflation.

财政预算2008系列(4) - Baby Bonus/单收入家庭补助需要要通过家庭收入测试（15万）
$ A$ ]& t8 `# D( j7 N' a% \
' Y6 R" I9 U% u- S! P! @Baby bonus可能要通过家庭收入测试。
3 r1 F7 t3 d+ `! [目前baby bonus是$4,258。7月一日开始增加到$5,000。
8 S( t: s) s+ @+ F大多数选民认为baby bonus应该只给中低收入的家庭（家庭年收入最高为7-10万）。但是预计政府计划的能够领取baby bonus的最高家庭收入比7-10万高。
9 i5 |$ B9 y8 B' i( i. [+ J8 X) h; ^( i1 {2 e8 d+ Z* p

, ?+ ~& y2 d6 ^* D/ U5 ?; J$ I5 O2 C4 G+ J8 {2 x/ f8 ]9 p+ O
引用:

Voters want baby bonus means tested% E' x0 @8 [( A' r9 G0 b# ^

% J+ c& M" ~1 O5 F; N9 U- XThe majority of voters want the baby bonus and other family payments withdrawn from higher-income earners and would forego tax cuts to avoid another interest rate rise, a new poll reveals.
: e# i" [9 l7 V( n+ N+ [# B! T1 rThe poll findings come one day before the Rudd government will release its first federal budget., ~; w% g/ G( b: [! D
The Newspoll, conducted for The Australian, found 65 per cent of voters want the baby bonus means tested and 64 per cent felt the same way about the benefit paid to stay-at-home mothers regardless of household income.4 r( z  E( y( ^6 a7 t# q
The baby bonus is worth $4,258 and will rise to $5,000 on July 1.0 M$ H$ u7 o+ ?% [1 _8 [" U
Most voters polled want the means tests to kick in at household incomes between $70,000 and $100,000, which are lower than what the Labor government has been publicly prepared to argue for.( l4 ]& Y6 c  E3 C' t0 _
About 66 per cent were in favour of tax cuts but that figure plummeted to 36 per cent when voters were asked if they still supported tax cuts if they could lead to another interest rate rise.

Baby bonus需要means test了。单收入家庭补助(family assistance part B)也同样需要means test。  z" @! c" B! _$ {( f. B
这两个福利的分界线从2008/09财政年度开始变成家庭收入15万。15万以上就没有领取baby bonus和family assistance part B的资格了。! r( [' d9 f4 B' w( ~, c1 n( S, B

! c, ]9 c0 O$ N3 U, cCut-off at $150,000 for baby bonus 引用:

    * Stephanie Peatling
; q4 ~4 H  @+ ]% N1 V. G8 ^. x    * May 14, 2008 - 12:26AM8 @& e$ e- t, s# f% n: O: }6 {
THE baby bonus and family tax benefit B will no longer be paid to high-income families, in the Government's attempt to target the welfare system to families who need help the most.& I- G; B  J! j& K2 ?

9 s  e! f& v) D* C0 @6 DFrom January 1 a means test will apply to families with a combined income of $150,000 a year or more.
/ w7 f6 w% ~, J2 @
( ~7 F1 H9 r9 f9 L* n  l  hIf the primary earner earns $150,000, the family will lose family tax benefit B, a change likely to affect about 40,000 families.
% \& T3 @- {+ j. N) R4 n
, f5 q) m  P' p  h1 lAbout 16,000 families are expected to no longer receive the $5000 baby bonus after a new means test is introduced.
7 v! F" b$ x( l; ^8 \5 A% M, R. ?1 T2 C* ^, c
From January 1 the means test will be based on the family's income in the six months following a birth on a pro-rata annual basis equivalent to $75,000 over that six-month period.2 |3 b9 u, b  H% i$ u9 K( Z- Z% }
) K9 \- e3 ?9 a+ A
The Minister for Family and Community Services, Jenny Macklin, said the changes would make the family payments system "simpler and fairer".
9 M1 `# F# j% g, W& R; U. `. y( |' |4 f' C5 l
The Government was "taking responsible decisions to ensure a responsive and targeted social and income support system".8 G" c: r/ w% i- N* X+ P9 b) C! T

# M7 ]6 S+ ^2 z4 B6 i6 }& JAll families will receive the baby bonus in a new way. Instead of a lump sum, the bonus will be paid in 13 fortnightly instalments of about $385.' L8 @; |  W+ f& k: q: n
, T+ F2 k: j) U9 L: f- G1 a. o
"The new instalment systems means parents will have the cash they need to pay the bills as they come in," Ms Macklin said.
3 y! G  @( x3 E3 v* c3 _# g* F& _5 s
The baby bonus will rise from about $4300 to $5000 on July 1 and it will be indexed annually on July 1 each year after that.: ~" H" m1 b8 ~$ F

' T" j+ d+ K/ w) t/ hIntroducing a threshold for both the baby bonus and family tax benefit B was discussed widely before the budget with the Government making much of speculation it would focus on giving more help to lower- and middle-income families.( ^1 a, n( n7 E5 ~/ h( L# d
* D. i, W. Y' B. ^
Labor previously called family tax benefit B welfare for the rich.
: O% x8 S# r# s8 b0 k  ?! I" ~# j' m! _& L& H& t1 V! M: j* ^
In 2004 it was revealed that 76 families on incomes of more than $1 million had received the $65-a-week payment.% ^& O: U1 f- j
3 v- ]: W3 i+ ~1 L! b, {
A further 352 families on incomes of more than $500,000 also claimed the payment, originally introduced for families with one parent staying at home.

财政预算2008系列(5) - 保留work for the dole
( e& @' n* B3 F) N" p
- r/ {8 _1 N* h9 V! n财长Wayne Swan否认最近一些报道说work for the dole政策会被取消。财长还说：“我们会保留work for the dole，但是我们还会给就业培训提供根多的拨款。”
+ @! T1 K, ]4 V3 dWork for the dole就是让领取社会福利而且有工作能力的人做义务劳动。
, y; E6 A; h7 d; U
* `+ t7 f: F) T8 m" lWork for the dole to stay: Swan
/ Z- r* W7 f4 \+ y! e引用:

TREASURER Wayne Swan says the work for the dole scheme will remain, denying reports it would be axed in tonight's federal budget.
8 v( @( x* w6 Q' G! e) qIt had been reported the Rudd government was preparing to dump the scheme because welfare groups had claimed it was not working.
. T8 r9 W& Q$ HThe report prompted vehement criticism from the federal opposition with leader Brendan Nelson labelling the move as a "retrograde" step for the country./ L. ^9 c( q* N
Mr Swan told reporters at Parliament House the previous Howard government scheme would be retained.
" l& v& w9 j# R" H"We're keeping work for the dole," he said.2 G( L& Y! `% O) h5 Y- P
"We're going to invest more in training but we are keeping work for the dole."
& o- i' N; R5 wEarlier Dr Nelson said it was was very important to get jobless people out of bed and off the couch.
( R! d' w+ ]8 g: }* n- K"We expect you to make a contribution to the society which provides a benefit and support to you, that we want to provide structure in your day," he told ABC Radio.
: e. h# f2 D' m: ?9 I2 X" r3 g& O# R"And the most important thing, we live in a country where we define ourselves through our work, it's very important we get people off the couch."
, z8 F' S) i6 ~+ a$ l% XAustralian Democrats leader Lyn Allison said there were problems with the program.
! m+ ~6 L# E# x$ ?# AThe scheme needed to be better directed at people with mental illness, she said.
/ u- Y. |* K, |9 b% l; q"We need a far more humane approach," she told reporters.7 h% K9 N7 m+ \# k! U
"We need to encourage people into work and we've used this big stick in the past and it's been disastrous for many people."3 r3 |* e% o. l5 K1 N3 f  L; p* A

+ ]2 [/ @* n! e# T7 sAAP

财政预算2008系列(6) - 新的个人收入税率
, Q4 Z+ ~* i" L
  [8 V0 ?# v- M6 P% r6 h对一个财政预算来说和大家的切身利益最有关联的是个人收入税的变化。
5 @& u7 O; {1 O请看下面这个SMH的表格。
$ [9 `5 L# L) d4 |( I
' ?; D4 G7 X3 @- H4 O0 w0 R- x; s4 s
' O2 n" u5 _+ K" h
* G' N; p0 y6 f; z* E2 U

! S4 Z* z( |4 C' T: v比较工党财长的Wayne Swan（红色那排）和自由党前财长Peter Constello的那排。我们不难看出工党的减税受益人为工作中的低收入人群，而自由党的受益者是高收入人群。
. N8 f0 ^* P: f) U6 c! A2 D& f* F  l
评论：
2 j0 k4 I' N: T! u, z( ]去年选举前自由党要把高收入税率减少，理由是高收入者的工作效率比较高。减少高收入税率可以鼓励高效率的人们多劳动，从而提高国家劳动效率。有一定道理但是目的也很明显的是为自己的选民们捞好处。
; T+ F2 ]* c" I/ r; D工党把这次没有减低最高收入税率，但是增加了低收入税务补助并且少量的提高了各个税率的等级段。得到好处最多的就是低收入家庭。配合对child care rebate和family allowance part B的改革，最大受益者就是工党一直说的working family（全职工家庭）。0 J0 g& `$ ?" i! H
, r! S: \1 J) `$ g. ]" b$ y8 x% S
The Australian网站上有个计算器可以快速计算家庭缴税的变化

财政预算2008系列(7) - 对利息的影响
: `1 ]# r2 [5 e. C1 I9 P
% {: [9 {. b; q+ `0 y9 ?$ t看了不少报道，我的感觉是：
$ m1 p0 D/ g& W& J7 Y总体来说财政预算对利息的影响不是最大的。政府唯一能够做的就是削减政府开支以期影响通货膨胀下降。' }* _3 q7 @3 C( E  |1 U
本次财政预算应该说是一个比较平衡的财政预算。政府在增加财政开支方面是非常谨慎的。所有增加的开支都是为实现选举时作出的承诺。% x' M6 D" |  T# a% P
本预算削减开支来源于：减少政府开支，大幅削减了中产阶级的福利（baby bonus和单亲家庭补助等等）并且取消了对最高收入层的减税。同时被削减的是非城市地区的拨款。) r# I' N0 N. |3 ?' q& P3 l
政府预算中今年的财政盈余会达到$217亿。这些盈余都被放到几个主要的政府基金中为未来的拨款作准备。, X; H2 z7 u, `  J

) b" \4 [; q0 R这个预算利息的影响到底怎么样呢？我觉得在实现选举承诺的前提下从政府角度来说，能做得都已经做了。剩下就是看央行的利息政策的效果了。9 {; d( k$ F! L( |" G( g

% A3 t( i. ]  O7 q3 Z2 ?/ F  Y: C) @9 p# u$ ?# z* \  l7 _
SMH有两篇评论。
+ i6 k. ^) F! v; Q! v* j第一篇认为预算对通膨起到了推动作用。因为工党政府今次预算的开支（$2880亿）既是计算了通货膨胀也比07/08年的预算（$2750亿）开支多了1.1%。但是霍华德政府的最后一个财政预算（07/08）是一个非常糟糕的预算案。07/08年预算案比06/07多了5.2%的预算支出，实际多了2.5%
% W- o# L% ?* S/ ]0 }/ S第二片却认为这次的财政预算是一个非常苛刻的预算，削减了不少开支。应该给与肯定。
$ J" a$ ^0 Y, |1 f% n0 Z0 d# xInflation monster stalking * e2 F3 a) [7 @% }: i/ u1 x
引用:

Swan is out to curb inflation but is he creating a monster he can't control?
: H  z/ N, K8 ~" u1 o/ ?2 {4 A
If it's true that political leaders fall into two broad categories - pleasers and doers - then Kevin Rudd's first budget reveals him to be veering towards the "pleaser" category.
( h" a' X: S. O- D1 a9 m
# [& ^9 V! B0 l. X6 d' SFor the first budget of the first term of a new government, the time when a government should be at its most ambitious, it displays an unseasonably strong desire to be popular.' j% R1 E, v9 y- k; }% k7 n9 j

8 J! O6 r; X5 e4 c! ]- p7 o! PA former chief of staff to Paul Keating, the economist Don Russell, said recently that pleasers "subscribe to the notion that if you are nice to the electorate, the electorate will be nice to you".: s: V* L9 I( p
$ k- a" p2 w4 \- a5 I5 |
Doers, on the other hand, "believe that the electorate is much more impatient and believe that unless you are being useful, the electorate will inevitably tire of you and replace you"." w7 P' [" @/ b/ A- S9 c' o  R

' F- C% I" L: T/ jThere is some doing in the budget, but its overall character is to try to please.
0 s: X; V. @( _  R
8 C1 F  ?: ^  B6 w# [1 V) m6 r# MThe Treasurer, Wayne Swan, talks tough. He trumpets it as a budget to "fight inflation first", yet it is a budget that actually squibs the fight.
+ D0 s# t; a" f# X" S$ M8 O' Y" Y: m% [: M: A6 p6 k
How? The Government will proceed with tax cuts. It will honour $8.3 billion in tax cuts pledged by the Howard government, plus it will enact $7.1 billion in the first year's Rudd tax cuts that were promised before the election.
, b; t  w( Q0 L0 \! Z. o
6 _' n8 e) s2 C7 RTogether, this will tip over $15 billion into taxpayers' incomes in 2008-09. Plus, this budget will increase overall federal spending, after adjusting for inflation, by 1.1 per cent. Whereas the last Howard budget spent $275 billion, this one is set to spend $288 billion.
2 S5 B( J! F2 H3 P$ j3 {6 b
1 ?- p- |% h' v' H& Z/ t+ sThese are both measures that will stimulate demand and add to inflation.
) R/ d/ D: X  c6 T. l+ M' r7 V( S: J" @. P
Swan declared yesterday that the budget delivered a "mild tightening". But, in truth, the budget is stimulatory. It will add to inflation, not fight it. That leaves the Reserve Bank to do the tightening instead.) y  ?/ S7 q1 u) n! s% o2 y

: Y* L) _* G6 w, W' b* t6 T' iIt's true the Rudd Government has not spent as wantonly as the Howard government in its final term. A former director of budget analysis in the Department of Finance, Stephen Anthony, described recent Howard budgets as "Christmas night at the pirate's cave".  Q- u& y: e" |& T/ N% ^
" w& J% e4 m( q8 Y
The Howard government's final budget increased real spending by 5.2 per cent, according to the budget papers, and by 2.5 per cent in its penultimate budget.# g8 b2 H1 U8 s2 M) f3 m8 o

- `$ T  a+ ~8 Y! _9 yBut this is a mismatched comparison. Howard's was an aged government approaching an election; Rudd's is shiny and new, in the full flush of a decisive victory.
4 F& |3 X; |+ q8 c$ j# z
9 l: U1 `  L. ~$ H3 j8 J( IA better comparison is with the first terms of the Hawke and Howard governments - these administrations cut real spending by more than 2 per cent in their inaugural budgets, while Rudd is adding to real spending.
3 l0 M8 A3 u2 U2 v4 I- ^6 W8 ^& ]! K/ |( [, {
And, despite the Robin Hood rhetoric of taking from the rich to give to Rudd's "working families", in truth, the rich emerge from this budget unscathed and, on some measures, better off.
* `$ R5 Q/ q: A/ y" @1 l+ i
, ]( \& l; Q; e, b3 Y8 k' k) PThe budget does give generously to the "working families" previously known as Howard's battlers.
- _4 `% x  Z, @9 _1 M% R+ A- O- W) T# K$ c# h% p/ T( o
The "typical working family" illustrated in Government budget pamphlets has a primary breadwinner, Patrick, earning $60,000, and Susie, earning $27,000, and two young kids. The family will receive total new benefits worth $4160.
) n) g# p0 }8 U
- o7 e2 G% g) J- JThis comprises tax cuts worth $1050, an education tax refund of $375, plus an increase in the child-care rebate worth $1255, and benefits through the first home saver account of $1480." l% A* w, R. P( v" h' l6 ]; g" U
, n  F4 h; U) V
All together, that's an increase in Patrick's and Susie's disposable income of 4.8 per cent a year.
  a7 x) q* {# f3 A: y
  @9 b! J% t2 E. l, {! q1 S: LIn his 2005 book Postcode, Swan described families like this as the "splintering middle" of the Australian electorate. This group was "feeling left behind in the race for prosperity, they feel pressured. These are the people who increasingly determine the outcome of our elections.") O7 p3 K1 }! u" P

9 \+ k2 p" n, a5 H/ `" F4 DHis first budget is plainly designed to stop the splintering - to stop families from splintering financially, and politically, to prevent them from splintering away from Labor, to bind them with largesse to the Rudd Government which is governing so ostentatiously in their interests.
. U, S- M+ y' A9 o. P8 f* ~4 Z& Q+ I5 W: I! [
But this budget does not give to them at the expense of the winners
* e# h, |$ D9 w
9 W& b) i, m* F8 p9 ?0 p; vProud to be mean, the cut-lunch assassin+ e$ x0 f* ^# z+ X4 m; p
How strange it is to see a Treasurer trying to convince us of his brutality. Wayne Swan, bringing down his first budget, spent the first 20 minutes of his press conference talking up the nasty bits of the thing and barely mentioning the nice bits.4 Z6 T: k! U+ J+ e5 D3 n

/ P+ O# ~( a( z1 V, {4 `8 YSure, there are tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts and lovely new Medicare for thousands of people previously dragooned into taking out private health insurance, but all the Treasurer wanted to talk about was the slashing and burning. The Slaughter of the Innocents, in which thousands of babies lose their automatic $5000 lucky door prize!% q4 w3 j0 E6 W! \7 d# C  [( o

( u& B, I" {& c4 ~0 R5 @The brutal Cut Lunch Tax Assault, in which office workers can no longer escape fringe benefits tax on their sandwiches from the caf!
5 Q# b( O! p7 ~; w5 S4 d8 s9 |/ v. U2 b& Z
The Rape of the Rolls-Royces!
4 o5 G# _2 w2 M. ^3 z2 c, F
' \2 D. m! q+ e, {9 m3 C9 }/ z% ^6 gThe merciless replacement of Australian Industry Productivity Centres with Enterprise Connect Innovation Centres (a saving of $36 million, and exactly four consonants)!
6 V; V- p3 g. {
) R! n0 s. l! n; O- K# Q+ j9 DMr Swan couldn't stop talking about how mean he's planning to be, and how savage his spending cuts are.1 a8 S5 {4 H* l8 @+ f

) ^% i8 K6 b2 \" n" D" f"They are broad, they are wide, and they will not be popular," he warned.- p0 s& w9 P. l  [: O6 G0 a
6 t5 n7 p9 T: l) f" y
It was a faintly odd experience, like hearing a Sydney real estate agent saying: "Never mind about the harbour views. Have you noticed how crappy the plumbing is? And check out the needle exchange across the street!"* N6 K, U$ o6 b* j; x
" u- g' N, e& X1 J+ H' G
Messrs Swan and Rudd have successfully established a deep association between suffering and virtue in just six short months., u( n0 j6 U, p$ W  C- j: @+ N
; O2 M  ~- m* ?. R
Which is pretty impressive, when you consider that it takes some organised religions centuries to achieve the same effect.1 C8 A& _2 v3 M

0 X! L1 S1 p' C: ]On their own measure, this budget had to be mean, or else it would just be plain irresponsible, hence the talking-up of the horror.- o9 ~) p) R) z) _% X+ J
/ B( m! O" ~8 @
But as a horror budget, it turned out to be a pretty PG-rated affair.
0 z- O2 A' }- _
& r6 p* j% @7 M! e) HIf we were expecting Saw III, what we got was more High School Musical. The hulking spectres of our pre-budget nightmares turned out to be not much more than the distorted shadows of twigs on windows.
% g$ f6 s& k; r0 j6 A8 T7 e& v/ O* ]7 s) Z0 P9 R
The Slaughter of the Innocents, for all its appeal to hot-button politics, will save only $52 million next financial year - enough to pay for the "HECS incentives for maths and science students", or perhaps two "cyber-safety plans".
# }' r' {$ u. W; U. J
) f& o1 H) \9 _. u" L- ?Much of the rest of it was shuffling. Several hundreds of thousands of dollars were saved by the abolition of a program called Defeating The Weed Menace. In its place, the Government will spend $15 million over four years on something called the National Weeds and Productivity
" v/ a; L9 w& F- q! M, q3 w
0 y4 u- M8 R* ?  s/ Y) Y) B. ?in the race to prosperity. Although much Rudd Government rhetoric gives the impression that it is taking a stern approach to upper-income earners, it is not imposing any real penalty.
9 C( U  J+ f4 f' B( \5 g1 i: b3 t# a# x5 i  l: h& B5 r& f8 @- k6 s7 R
The budget does indeed impose a means test on the baby bonus and family tax benefit part B, denying these benefits to anyone earning more than $150,000.
  R$ W9 M( B; |/ ?
4 z% b! f' p7 j9 _A household with an income of $200,000 a year, one stay-at-home spouse and two young kids will lose a tax benefit worth $118 a week under this measure.9 Z4 v0 E2 }! j% O! Q. S

  D- P& T# r/ e/ p9 _1 }1 ?9 Q9 Z9 gThis, Swan said yesterday, was the toughest decision of the budget. But offsetting this is the fact that the same family will receive a tax cut worth $50. So the net loss will be $68 a week. That's a loss of 1.7 per cent. It's real, but it's very modest. Few families in this income bracket will cancel the family holiday as a result.& k, `4 L! m; D, p' B; Q

  O2 a7 ^/ _4 m1 ^+ z; SBut look two years ahead. The gathering value of the tax cuts will g