View Poll Results: WHO WILL WIN? (THIS POLL ASKS WHO WILL WIN, NOT WHO DO YOU WANT TO WIN)

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Coalition by >30 seats

    0 0%
  • Coalition by 16-30 seats

    0 0%
  • Coalition by 15 or fewer seats [CORRECT]

    4 33.33%
  • Hung parliament

    0 0%
  • Labor by 15 or fewer seats

    6 50.00%
  • Labor by 16-30 seats

    1 8.33%
  • Labor by >30 seats

    1 8.33%
Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 526
  1. #31
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,805
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    As I've pointed out to Komrad Baron before, if he wants to support more people on the pension, he'll need to pay more tax today, not less. Haven't seen any signs of volunteering for it.
    Komrad Baron suggests cutting other expenditures - mostly expenditures aimed at redirecting funds from those who ''earn'' to those who ''consume''. Plenty of money in the budget can be redirected.

    How much money do we spend on International Aid alone? https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/corpora...-a-glance.aspx

    This includes 200m contribution towards the lovely issue of ''Climate Change'' that triggered the discussion
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  2. #32
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,490
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Komrad Baron suggests cutting other expenditures - mostly expenditures aimed at redirecting funds from those who ''earn'' to those who ''consume''. Plenty of money in the budget can be redirected.

    How much money do we spend on International Aid alone? https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/corpora...-a-glance.aspx

    This includes 200m contribution towards the lovely issue of ''Climate Change'' that triggered the discussion
    200m lol that's chicken feed. Pension is $50b a year, and that's BEFORE YOU INCREASE IT!
    meep meep

  3. #33
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Komrad Baron suggests cutting other expenditures - mostly expenditures aimed at redirecting funds from those who ''earn'' to those who ''consume''. Plenty of money in the budget can be redirected. How much money do we spend on International Aid alone? https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/corpora...-a-glance.aspx This includes 200m contribution towards the lovely issue of ''Climate Change'' that triggered the discussion
    The cost of paying everyone over 60 the current age pension would be about $100 billion dollars. That is an extra $50 billion dollars in government spending (or an average tax increase of several thousand dollars). The combined spending on unemployment and sickness benefit plus foreign aid is only about $15 billion per year.

  4. #34
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Since taxpayers can spend money far more wisely than the politicians and bureaucrats running the Defence Department, I assume you would support eliminating it and giving the money back as tax cuts, so that taxpayers can pay for their own defence?
    Stop the silliness. I am not an anarchist but a minarchist. There are some legitimate roles for government, mainly defending people from threats from criminals within and invaders without. These roles benefit everyone. But much government spending is really a transfer from some citizens to some other citzens, with bureaucrats in effect getting a massive cut for arranging this transfer.

    Instead, I support more incentives for people to save for their own retirement instead of making superannuation less attractive, and encouraging more people to be privately insured for hospital expenses (Australia's private health insurance is much better than the USA's, because the latter has far more government meddling), and welfare to be a safety net instead of a lifestyle by ceasing to penalize people for working by cutting back benefits more by more than their earnings minus expenses. And do we really need all these government departments?
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  5. #35
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,509
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Labor believes high income earners should pay their fair share of tax, a concept which which I think most Australians would agree.
    Hich income earners already pay far MORE than their fair share. In 2015, the top 10% of earners pay over 50% of all taxes. But those earning under $18,200 pay no income tax.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Which is why we must stop the franking credit rort, where people who pay no income tax get an income tax refund!
    Because they have already paid taxes as a part owner of the company. The whole point of the franking credit was to stop the double taxation. Australia is an enlightened world leader in this.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #36
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    The cost of paying everyone over 60 the current age pension would be about $100 billion dollars. That is an extra $50 billion dollars in government spending (or an average tax increase of several thousand dollars). The combined spending on unemployment and sickness benefit plus foreign aid is only about $15 billion per year.
    But why should the ''rich'' keep paying for the ''poor''?
    When people having savings while others do not...is it always because of ''injustice''? What is wrong with people being rich and choosing what to do with their money?>
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  7. #37
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    The cost of paying everyone over 60 the current age pension would be about $100 billion dollars. That is an extra $50 billion dollars in government spending (or an average tax increase of several thousand dollars). The combined spending on unemployment and sickness benefit plus foreign aid is only about $15 billion per year.
    Yes quite comical. Michael's suggestion to fund the pension by cutting $200m spent on climate change would be akin to walking up to the restaurant counter after your meal and trying to pay the $100 bill with a 20c piece.
    meep meep

  8. #38
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Hich income earners already pay far MORE than their fair share. In 2015, the top 10% of earners pay over 50% of all taxes. But those earning under $18,200 pay no income tax.
    "Fair share" is subjective. Progressive taxation is a fair system, as voted into law in basically every western democracy.

    Because they have already paid taxes as a part owner of the company. The whole point of the franking credit was to stop the double taxation. Australia is an enlightened world leader in this.
    No, the change impacts shareholders with no tax liability. It stops the giving of public money to them for nothing.
    meep meep

  9. #39
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,805
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    "Fair share" is subjective. Progressive taxation is a fair system, as voted into law in basically every western democracy.


    No, the change impacts shareholders with no tax liability. It stops the giving of public money to them for nothing.
    Why is it fair that person A supports lifestyle of Person B? Orh voted in? Of course people B and C will be delighted to vote democratically for Person A supporting them!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  10. #40
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,805
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Yes quite comical. Michael's suggestion to fund the pension by cutting $200m spent on climate change would be akin to walking up to the restaurant counter after your meal and trying to pay the $100 bill with a 20c piece.
    Michael suggests to stop wasting money and at the same time stop re-distribution of wealth from those who create it to those who deliver less economic value.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  11. #41
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,490
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Why is it fair that person A supports lifestyle of Person B? Orh voted in? Of course people B and C will be delighted to vote democratically for Person A supporting them!
    A has more propensity to pay. A also has more to lose, Eg taxes support law and order. A wants their greater wealth maintained.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Michael suggests to stop wasting money and at the same time stop re-distribution of wealth from those who create it to those who deliver less economic value.
    Bit hard to take seriously the moaning over 20c when you're happy to waste $100.
    meep meep

  12. #42
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Stop the silliness. I am not an anarchist but a minarchist. There are some legitimate roles for government, mainly defending people from threats from criminals within and invaders without. These roles benefit everyone. But much government spending is really a transfer from some citizens to some other citzens, with bureaucrats in effect getting a massive cut for arranging this transfer.
    ALL government spending is "really a transfer from some citizens to some other citizens", so your argument works against any government spending, including on defence. And preventing AGW benefits everyone, but you still oppose it. So your position makes no sense.

  13. #43
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    But why should the ''rich'' keep paying for the ''poor''? When people having savings while others do not...is it always because of ''injustice''? What is wrong with people being rich and choosing what to do with their money?>
    So no answer to the massive 'black hole' I pointed out in your spending plan?

  14. #44
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,081
    Kevin Bonham is starting to become more of the go to man of Australian politics than Antony Green:

    https://www.news.com.au/national/fed...2354810f9c8879

  15. #45
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,081
    There could also be a poll question as well for the Senate?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Australian Federal Election [COALITION WINS]
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 322
    Last Post: 24-09-2016, 08:25 PM
  2. Who will you vote for in the federal election?
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 19-06-2016, 01:18 AM
  3. Australian Federal Election 2013 [Coalition Wins]
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 380
    Last Post: 29-11-2013, 02:21 AM
  4. Federal Election 2004 (Coalition Wins)
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 27-07-2010, 12:25 PM
  5. Federal Election 2007 (Labor Wins)
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 347
    Last Post: 07-07-2008, 02:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •