Australia's Budget Should Be Abolished

817 Words2 Pages

In comparison to last years budget, which was deemed to be unfair, the budget this year focuses on fairness. The budget has seen a shift in focus towards ‘boosting jobs, growth, opportunity’ and ‘progressing budget repair in a responsible, measured and fair way’. It is likely to increase both consumer and business confidence but a return to surplus seems to be getting pushed further back. As revenue flows improve, the economy will slow down spending to try get back to surplus.

By adopting a fairer approach to repairing the budget, this year’s Budget should have a more positive impact on confidence. The proposed measures should benefit the economy and stand a greater chance of passing through the Senate. This is positive for growth and should …show more content…

The effect of the tax cuts on small businesses from 30% to 28.5% for small businesses and an immediate tax deduction on $20,000 will urge businesses to employ more people and invest more, as they will expect to make a profit of $50,000 and save roughly $5,700 a year. These initiatives were introduced to make people spend and invest, and thus, help in economic growth. The economy is in need of non-mining investment to boost economic activity.

Employment
The budget wants small business to become the driver of Australia’s economic recovery. The 2015-16 budget aimed to focus on job seekers more employable, reducing the cost of taking on new staff and also, ensuring job seekers meet their obligations and actively look for work. The small business package will encourage small businesses to grow, thus creating new jobs and providing job opportunities especially to young people. During periods of unemployment, job seekers will be required to complete activities to receive a payment after a waiting period.
However, the current record low interest rates, slow wage growth and declining investment due a lack of business and consumer confidence won’t allow the economy to absorb a large amount of new workers so …show more content…

The Great Barrier Reef Trust was given $100 million over 4 years to keep the Reef off the World Heritage in Danger list. The trust was largely funded by cuts to the Green Army and the plan to abolish the CSIRO Environment Strategic Advisory Committee. Although climate change was considered to be a priority, there was not much to address the issue. Nothing regarding renewable energy programs was mentioned. The introduction of a renewable energy program and decreasing spending on fuel and diesel could reduce not only air pollution but also the chemical pollution in the Great Barrier

Open Document