Future Fund to fund infrastructure?

Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Post Reply
Jovial Monk

Future Fund to fund infrastructure?

Post by Jovial Monk » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:18 pm

From this mornings Australian, private enterprise can't raise the large amount of funds for infrastructure funding. So there go PPPs and I say good riddance! States also having difficulty raising funds in todays tight credit market. So it has been suggested the Future Fund be used to fund infrastructure. (The Borg will be in strife, PPPs were his 'brilliant idea' along with slashing PS numbers while, somehow, magic? decreasing class sizes.)

I second this idea heartily! Spend all the money on productive infrastructure, sell of the Telstra shares there (even at todays prices) and invest that as well! Close the Higher Education Endowment Fund, giving 20% to the Unis which will make them happy and spend the rest!

Heheheh I argued this with Sheepy, he was most indignant, believing the official Fib lie that this was for PS Super! It was, of course, just put together by Tip to keep some funds out the hands of the rabidly porkbarreling Rodent! The Fed budget is now an accrual accounting document and provisions are made each year for PS super.

Despite having $45Bn in CASH the FF makes a fucking loss! How? Don't ask me! I think it is people high on the gravy train, David Murray and the US (of course) FF manager who need to spend $35m a year on managing cash deposits--WTF?) Just wipe it away and DO something with all that money!

Not spending money on infrastructure will mean our already crumbling infrastructure will deteriorate even more, increasing costs to business--and means that many, many people unemployed, dragging the country even further down into recession, decreasing tax revenue etc etc. This was done, pensions and PS wages cut, capital works programs cut and we in Australia suffered one of the worst, deepest and longest Great Depression in the 1930s. not an option!

The $200Bn debt facility set up by the govt is not for paying for stimulus packages, it is to fund the increased number of dole payments and decreasing personal and corporate tax inflows due to the recession.

White Indigene

Re: Future Fund to fund infrastructure?

Post by White Indigene » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:35 pm

Jovial Monk wrote:The $200Bn debt facility set up by the govt is not for paying for stimulus packages, it is to fund the increased number of dole payments and decreasing personal and corporate tax inflows due to the [SOCIALISM].
Youve sort of got it correct.

But its reeally about the Socialist sewing circle

Jovial Monk

Re: Future Fund to fund infrastructure?

Post by Jovial Monk » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:42 pm

Do not change people posts when you quote them.

For that, you can get fucked for a while.

Postul8

Re: Future Fund to fund infrastructure?

Post by Postul8 » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:16 pm

Bad move. Future fund sacrosanct. David Murray unemployed. Unfunded future liabilities. Sell rest of Telstra. Problem solved! :lol:

Rainbow Moonlight
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:23 pm

Re: Future Fund to fund infrastructure?

Post by Rainbow Moonlight » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:13 pm

Not sure I am with you on this one JM. Unfunded super liabilities was a great reason to set up the fund. Unless there is a mechanism for repaying the money to the fund- as well as adding to it, then i have strong reservation about dipping into it. It was one of the things the Libs did that i actually approved of.

Jovial Monk

Re: Future Fund to fund infrastructure?

Post by Jovial Monk » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:19 pm

As I said, ele, it was mainly set up to put money out of reach of the Rodent. With the budget now an accrual documents provision is made each year for future PS super payouts. The FF is useless and it is losing money. Losing money and it has $45Bn cash, HTF can you lose money on $45Bn cash?

Rainbow Moonlight
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:23 pm

Re: Future Fund to fund infrastructure?

Post by Rainbow Moonlight » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:53 pm

Yeah - well you could be right- i don't really have enough knowledge- background on what actually happens regarding those obligations now and how the future fund was meant to be and how it is working. Just seemed a good idea to me at the time. Still looks like a good idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... uture_Fund

I am not against using it- just that there should be a return on its use, or at least a plan for the refund of the capital at some stage.

Jovial Monk

Re: Future Fund to fund infrastructure?

Post by Jovial Monk » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:00 pm

Sure, not giving it away.

Like the Ruddibank, lend money but charge interest so the tax payer profits. If the Fibs are stupid enough to oppose this than Rudd will likely tell Murray to lend the $2Bn.

Wish Conroy would stop dicking with the internet filter which won't happen and get that broadband tender all wrapped up so work on it can start! Again the Ff can lend money at interest, why the hell not?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests