PDA

View Full Version : Wall To Wall Labor



Pages : [1] 2 3

Basil
02-03-2008, 11:35 PM
While the last of the 'rodent' squeals emanate in relation to John Howard, focus turns to the present. This thread is designed STRICTLY (not that the lefty's can help themselves :rolleyes:) for the purpose of listing Labor's self-made cock-ups. No politics. No tit for tat. Straight up home-grown and incubated Labor filth!

Case #1
Wollongong council corruption (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23256359-2,00.html)

Case #2
James Reyne says Garrett has "sold Melbourne out" over green dredging issue (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/05/1202090421845.html). Watch this space.

Basil
02-03-2008, 11:39 PM
Case #3
Not sure if building a monument to self (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23303906-421,00.html) :rolleyes: counts. No doubt what the reaction would have been if another party did same while in government? :doh: [/rhetorical]

Rincewind
02-03-2008, 11:39 PM
Case #1
Woolloongong council corruption (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23256359-2,00.html)

I don't watch much news so this was interesting. I was surprised to see the city corruption extended to the addition of two o's to the name - now fixed. ;)

Kevin Bonham
02-03-2008, 11:50 PM
Case #2
James Reyne says Garrett has "sold Melbourne out" over green dredging issue.

Who cares less what James Reyne says? Environmental issues are frequently infested with clueless green celebs (typically has-beens at that) attacking government policy whether the government is Liberal or Labor.

Basil
02-03-2008, 11:52 PM
Who cares less what James Reyne says? Environmental issues are frequently infested with clueless green celebs (typically has-beens at that) attacking government policy whether the government is Liberal or Labor.
Eeerr Mr Centrist *cough*, isn't the issue of what James Reyne says related to its substance and not his previous career? ;) I'll provide a written quote from Reyne when it comes to hand. Only sighted him on tv so far.

eclectic
02-03-2008, 11:55 PM
sledging labor sucks. give it up! :owned:

Basil
03-03-2008, 12:04 AM
sledging labor sucks. give it up! :owned:
Yeah, these newspaper reports of events that are actually occurring in actual electorates are pitiful compared to threads such as this gem (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4265).

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2008, 12:20 AM
Eeerr Mr Centrist *cough*, isn't the issue of what James Reyne says related to its substance and not his previous career? ;)

You failed to provide any indication of substance in your comment. Just an unsubstantiated accusation with the name of a celebrity attached to it. You would hardly have highlighted "Random person on the street in Melbourne says Garrett has sold Melbourne out", would you? And since his previous career doesn't appear to include anything especially relevant I doubt his comment will have any particular merit either.

As for your cough at my "centrist" comment (Dr Centrist to you anyway, thanks)
recently you were calling me a leftist because I was attacking Centrelink. Now I'm criticising celebrity environmentalism. That's two particular causes on which I have showed up on different sides of the spectrum as widely understood, thus underlining my centrist cred (or, as some would have it, my unpredictable nature).

You, however, are so desperate to attack Labor you will even stoop to using the blabberings of enviro-celebimbos to try to make a valid point, even though you sell out what your own side stands for in more ways than one in the process. (All of this, of course, is why Peter Garrett's position as a not very green environment minister is so hilarious. :lol: )

Should've stuck to the council thing. May not have much oomph at national level but at least it's sordid and messy.

Basil
03-03-2008, 12:28 AM
You failed to provide any indication of substance in your comment.
True. But I noted that I would get substance with "Watch this space etc.." (I forget what comment I had in prior to inserting 'watch this space'). You however failed the test of substance without any caveat whatsoever.


recently you were calling me a leftist because I was attacking Centrelink.
OK, you were attacking Centrelink for being too harsh. That's the lefty in you... and


Now I'm criticising celebrity environmentalism. That's two particular causes on which I have showed up on different sides of the spectrum as widely understood ...
Nice try. Your criticism has the sole effect of defending the Labor government. There's nothing 'two ends of the spectrum' at play here at all.


Should've stuck to the council thing. May not have much oomph at national level but at least it's sordid and messy.
No thanks. Happy to leave this steaming doo doo on the pile for posterity (and as an emerging story) - there's more to come on this one.

Axiom
03-03-2008, 12:31 AM
Yeah, these newspaper reports of events that are actually occurring in actual electorates are pitiful compared to threads such as this gem (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4265).
ahh , that was a gem , thankyou

dont tell me newspapers are actually reporting on actual events OMG !
Get the doctor ! :lol:

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2008, 12:38 AM
True. But I noted that I would get substance.

I'm waiting ... for every promise you make that is not accompanied by evidence the level of shellacking you should accept if the substance is not up to scratch will be doubled. :D

Of course if all you had is a TV grab its unlikely you have enough info on the issue anyway.


You were attacking Centrelink for being too harsh. That's the lefty in you.

And the lefty in Jono too?


Cute. For the absolute protection of the sitting Labor government. There's nothing 'two ends of the spectrum' at play here at all.

But I have said nothing about the current Labor government with respect to Centrelink at all. The jury is out about whether it has the slightest intent of reforming Centrelink in a useful fashion or whether it will simply prolong the Howard model (which in itself was not a new evil but a massive escalation of retrograde steps commenced under Hawke/Keating.)

Furthermore there are certainly things I will criticise the new government for. Its position on internet filtering was criticised by me even before it was elected and I am already looking suspiciously at the noises it is making about issues associated with drinking.


No thanks. Happy to leave this steaming doo doo on the pile for posterity.

In what way? Are you expecting a genuine enviro-disaster from the proposed Melbourne dredging (if it happens) or are you saying the council saga will bring down Kevin Rudd?

Axiom
03-03-2008, 12:43 AM
And the lefty in Jono too?



Only that jono thinks its too soft rather than too harsh

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2008, 12:47 AM
Only that jono thinks its too soft rather than too harsh

Bzzzt! Check some of his past comments more carefully. And remind yourself that Jono supports negative taxation which effectively equals an unconditional dole.

Axiom
03-03-2008, 12:55 AM
Bzzzt! Check some of his past comments more carefully. And remind yourself that Jono supports negative taxation which effectively equals an unconditional dole.
Bzzzt ! negative taxation is not centrelink !
he doesnt say centrelink is too harsh , but rather too soft in that only workers recieve benefits as opposed to current system where non-workers recieve benefits.

Aaron Guthrie
03-03-2008, 08:14 AM
As for your cough at my "centrist" comment (Dr Centrist to you anyway, thanks) recently you were calling me a leftist because I was attacking Centrelink. Now I'm criticising celebrity environmentalism. That's two particular causes on which I have showed up on different sides of the spectrum as widely understood, thus underlining my centrist cred (or, as some would have it, my unpredictable nature).An extremist centrist.

Basil
03-03-2008, 10:44 AM
Of course if all you had is a TV grab its unlikely you have enough info on the issue anyway.
Ha! And you said I stoop - now we're equal. Story, not grab. As you probably suspect, I don't do grabs - Mr and Mrs Plank do grabs every night at 6 o'clock!


Furthermore there are certainly things I will criticise the new government for.
I believe you. And that is why you probably are slightly centrist. But we can't have 80% of us claiming to be centrists - that's silly. Kevin Rudd reckons he's a centrist - and his politics ain't the same as mine! I think you should make Rudd take one of your polls. I have some some bad news for him - he's a lefty!

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2008, 03:34 PM
Bzzzt ! negative taxation is not centrelink !

If the rates are reasonable it is a superior replacement as it provides the same reserve income without the hoop-jumping.


he doesnt say centrelink is too harsh , but rather too soft in that only workers recieve benefits as opposed to current system where non-workers recieve benefits.

I am unable to link this to any comment he has made that I recall. Please link to a post by him that demonstrates this point (whatever it is).


Ha! And you said I stoop - now we're equal. Story, not grab.

A "story" is often just a long grab. Still waiting for any evidence that it contained substance rather than posturing.


I believe you. And that is why you probably are slightly centrist. But we can't have 80% of us claiming to be centrists - that's silly. Kevin Rudd reckons he's a centrist - and his politics ain't the same as mine! I think you should make Rudd take one of your polls. I have some some bad news for him - he's a lefty!

I can't make Rudd take one of those polls but I can try to guess the answers he would give. On the Political Compass test my attempt to second-guess Rudd's responses got a result around (-2,0) (economic, social). As has been noted before, the quiz seems a bit left-skewed on economics when applied to an Australian audience, so adjusting for that it's likely that by Australian standards Rudd is indeed close to centrist (centre-left at most), but you don't realise that because you are a Liberal Party supporter. Do you think Tony Blair is/was a lefty too?

Note: saying that Rudd is close to centrist and that I am also close to centrist (on average) is not an endorsement of Rudd. There are many issues I would be strongly to the left or right of him on.

It may be hard for you to accept that Rudd is not a screaming lefty, but I have the privelege of having lived for several years under a state Labor government that is mildly centre-right.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-03-2008, 04:02 PM
The public sentiment is usually goes in tides. I remember sometime after Howard's first electoral win all states (except NSW) had liberal government.
We'll probably see few state governments changing to liberal in the next few years.
The difference between parties on the state level is even more blurred then on the federal, so idelogy is very unlikely to be the major issue.

Basil
03-03-2008, 04:54 PM
It may be hard for you to accept that Rudd is not a screaming lefty ...
He's not a screaming one.

He's a boy with lefty ideals who's grown into a man trying to comes to terms with them and merging conservative ideas at a million miles an hour as the paucity of his ideology sinks in. Swan and that political plank Julia, too (she has a brain). If you think that's puffery, don't forget the 10 years of lefty obfuscation crap peddled by them from the safety of the opposition benches that they're now disowning, watering down and rethinking by the ton.


Do you think Tony Blair is/was a lefty too?
He was. I had a lot of time for him. The difference is that Blair was an honest man who didn't switch horses and ideals mid-stream.

Southpaw Jim
03-03-2008, 11:19 PM
Labor must really be cocking up. Tomorrow's Newspoll:

Two party preferred: 63-37

A pretty good result, higher than the Coalition ever achieved under Howard, which was 56.5-43.5 shortly after 9/11. The Coalition's best ever recorded Newspoll result was 59.9-40.1 following Dawkins' horror post-election budget.

Preferred PM: Rudd 69; Nelson 7

Howard only ever managed to achieve 67, in the aftermath of the Bali bombings.

I believe 7 may be a new all-time, super duper, record low. To steal someone else's joke, Nelson isn't the Opposition Leader, he's the Locum! :lol: It's getting to the point where they'll have to include Bob Brown in the Preferred PM survey!! :lol:

Howard, 7 out of 10 australians think Rudd's the best man for the job. Suck it up boys :whistle: :hand:

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2008, 12:15 AM
Request the following posts are split off into the ether to die ignominiously in their own time:

6, 7, 10, 11, 12-15, 20-27, 28 (belongs in 'The 3') and 29.

Thanks for your consideration.

H

6 - not especially erudite but an challenge to the premise of the thread which he is entitled to express
7 - your reply to same, happy to delete if you want to
10 - happy to delete if I also delete 7, otherwise it stays there
11 - reply to 9 so certainly not going anywhere while 9 remains
12-15 - only a few posts and natural thread drift from you calling me a lefty over Centrelink so can stay where it is for now. If lengthy discussion develops from there it will be moved
20-27 and 29 - agreed and split
28 (now 20) - can also stay for now as it challenges the premise of the thread but may be moved to Dr 9% thread esp if there is following discussion
31 - deleted :lol:

Basil
04-03-2008, 11:58 PM
You would hardly have highlighted "Random person on the street in Melbourne says Garrett has sold Melbourne out", would you? And since his previous career doesn't appear to include anything especially relevant I doubt his comment will have any particular merit either.
I might have to withdraw Case #2
The best I've got so far is this article (http://alpineopinion.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/reyne-out-of-his-depth-on-bay-dredging/[/url) essentially paraphrasing of Kevin B's position. The issue seems to have no (or few) legs. I thought it would. However, interest rates, Nelson's poor showing, the US election and Wollongong have pushed many items off the front pages that would have otherwise had traction. I'll never know.

Conversely

Should've stuck to the council thing. May not have much oomph at national level ...
Well the other Kevin (Mr Teflon) was trying to distance talking about it today. While you clearly (from your answer) wish to play it right down, and I clearly (by my original inclusion) wanted it on the agenda, I only really want to know what 'The 3' will make of it.


but at least it's sordid and messy.
Spoken like a true lefty. It's endemic corruption. Proven by ICAC. Resulting in a Labor council being sacked! Yeah 'messy'.

Kevin Bonham
05-03-2008, 12:33 AM
Well the other Kevin (Mr Teflon) was trying to distance talking about it today. While you clearly (from your answer) wish to play it right down,

Not really. If that had been my aim I would have depicted it as a complete beat-up; I am just being sceptical of how far up it is likely to go.

"The 3" have probably had a gutful of politics right now and might pay it more attention some time late next year.

Basil
11-03-2008, 12:35 PM
'The West Wing' coined a phrase 'Putting It Out With The Trash'.

The phrase referred to releasing unsavoury news on a Friday afternoon so both the media heavyweights and the opposition had limited play while the issue was fresh.

Last week, after Rudd had nipped off overseas for great press and plaudits (just for the day mind you, one of the Fijians even named their son Kevin Rudd - excuse me while I vomit), the Labor Party announced the razoring of the carer payments on Thursday and the pensioner payments on Friday.

That Rudd's foot-soldiers were asked to relay the cut-backs news while Teflon Kev was lapping up the OS press stinks.

Rudd's act down the barrel of the camera that "people won't be left in the lurch" is revolting. He's trading on his extremely well-cultivated Milky Bar Kid, boy-next-door "we'll save ya" & "every Australian" routine. Clearly there was no plan to offset the cuts or they wouldn't be cuts :wall:.

Apart from his super-spin and double flip on Kyoto (I reckon the majority of Australians still think he's more green than the conservatives), a gazumping on 'Sorry', and his Day 01 get the Labor members on the streets to check the homeless, this kid's got nothing! He's a light-weight, clueless but extremely well-rehearsed focus group clown.

This labor government will be tossed for incompetence - of that there is no doubt - they always are. The question is simply 'when?'. History has shown that people are incredibly stupid and and forgiving when infatuated.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2008, 01:08 PM
This labor government will be tossed for incompetence - of that there is no doubt - they always are. The question is simply 'when?'.

Care for a guess? :lol:

(Don't look this way for an accurate one. When Howard was first elected I thought he would not last that long - but I expected him to be more radical from the outset than he was - instead he extended his longevity with the aid of a compliantly obstructive (yes, that's possible!) Senate.)

pax
11-03-2008, 01:09 PM
Last week, after Rudd had nipped off overseas for great press and plaudits (just for the day mind you, one of the Fijians even named their son Kevin Rudd - excuse me while I vomit), the Labor Party announced the razoring of the carer payments on Thursday and the pensioner payments on Friday.

I actually suspect that there may have been some sensible policy ideas behind this one. Howard had a penchant for throwing ad-hoc "cash bonuses" out to various groups, often just prior to an election, and often completely separate from the usual allowances or pensions - the result is a godawful mess of allowances and bonuses that takes a tax accountant to figure out.

These cash bonuses were not written into forward budget estimates, so they are temporary, at least on paper. The problem is that removing them becomes politically damaging for whoever does it - hence this week's backpedal from Labor. It is my hope that they can find a way of solving the issue by merging the bonuses into other already existing payments resulting in a simpler system, but I suspect they may just end up keeping the payments as is.

I note that the Libs are asking Labor to specifically rule out the removal of these bonuses (which as yet they have not done), which would essentially cement Howards ad-hockery for decades to come.

pax
11-03-2008, 01:12 PM
Rudd's act down the barrel of the camera that "people won't be left in the lurch" is revolting. He's trading on his extremely well-cultivated Milky Bar Kid, boy-next-door "we'll save ya" & "every Australian" routine. Clearly there was no plan to offset the cuts or they wouldn't be cuts :wall:.

You know this is starting to make you sound like a Lefty wailing about the conservative government's axing of some ad-hoc Lefty handout or another :owned: :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 02:14 PM
I actually suspect that there may have been some sensible policy ideas behind this one. Howard had a penchant for throwing ad-hoc "cash bonuses" out to various groups, often just prior to an election, and often completely separate from the usual allowances or pensions — the result is a godawful mess of allowances and bonuses that takes a tax accountant to figure out.
Blame the unwillingness of both sides to consider radical reform of the tax system, e.g. on the lines of the LDP's 30/30 plan (http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm70.pdf). Our current convulted tax and welfare systems practically begs for ad hockery, since both sides have the ability to manipulate them to bribe and punish. But the LDP plan can have a certain tax-free threshold for children (say $10/child) and extra for disabilities.

pax
11-03-2008, 03:13 PM
Blame the unwillingness of both sides to consider radical reform of the tax system, e.g. on the lines of the LDP's 30/30 plan (http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm70.pdf). Our current convulted tax and welfare systems practically begs for ad hockery, since both sides have the ability to manipulate them to bribe and punish. But the LDP plan can have a certain tax-free threshold for children (say $10/child) and extra for disabilities.

None of this (extra thresholds for children etc) is actually addressed in that, or any other document I have read on 30/30. Hence the need for a proper study.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 03:19 PM
None of this (extra thresholds for children etc) is actually addressed in that, or any other document I have read on 30/30. Hence the need for a proper study.
The main paper does talk about suggested thresholds and how the overwhelming majority of families would be better off under 30/30 than under the current regime.

It doesn't cover disabilities formally, but it's unreasonable to expect everything to be covered. My suggestion is to increase TFTs.

Spiny Norman
11-03-2008, 03:27 PM
Wonderful to see PM Kevin "I don't recall" Rudd lecturing us on moderation in respect of alcohol consumption. Maybe he's too drunk now (on power) to recall that a couple of years ago he was too drunk (on alcohol) to recall what he was doing in that New York strip club. Enough to make me vomit ... and I haven't been drinking (enough).

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 03:48 PM
You know this is starting to make you sound like a Lefty wailing about the conservative government's axing of some ad-hoc Lefty handout or another :owned: :owned:
Of course, this only works because Lefties have demonised conservatives as lacking in compassion, despite the facts (http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html), without telling anyone that "compassion" to a lefty means generosity with other people's money.

Aaron Guthrie
11-03-2008, 03:59 PM
Wonderful to see PM Kevin "I don't recall" Rudd lecturing us on moderation in respect of alcohol consumption. Maybe he's too drunk now (on power) to recall that a couple of years ago he was too drunk (on alcohol) to recall what he was doing in that New York strip club. Enough to make me vomit ... and I haven't been drinking (enough).How is this tu quoque relevant? His drinking habits doesn't make binge drinking any safer or any less of an important thing to prevent.

Basil
11-03-2008, 05:35 PM
You know this is starting to make you sound like a Lefty wailing about the conservative government's axing of some ad-hoc Lefty handout or another.
If it sounds like that, you aren't listening closely enough.

I've complained about nothing (except welling nausea). I am highlighting again double standards that if John Howard were to razor benefits (not that he ever did :wall:), then

(1) the country would be drowning in a sea of marching, venting, mealy-mouthed lefties screaming crap about not representing the under-privileged.
(2) the opposition left of Kevin, Julia, Wayne et al belting out the OUT OF TOUCH WITH ORDINARY AUSTRALIANS mantra.
(3) Every bloody union and associated axe-grinding bleeding heart would be out in support.

which historically (as you all well know, even if it works to your advantage) fuels an hysteria of water-cooler, adolescent brain-washing, hyperbole.

That said, I am pleased to note that there is very little evidence on this board of known lefties trying to play that impossible game of twister in justifying the shambles that the Labor Party has made of this one. If your best effort is that this all sounds like a whinge, then I am truly heartened that some of the Mr Sheen veneer might be coming off for 'The 3'.

But the main point for the thinking voter at least (and especially the ones that had never lived through a Labor government) is that of the incredible double-standards that apply to man left voters.

As to the Rudd policy itself, I have made no comment whatsoever save observe that many people benefited from the bonus. :hand:

Basil
11-03-2008, 05:39 PM
Care for a guess? :lol:

(Don't look this way for an accurate one. When Howard was first elected I thought he would not last that long - but I expected him to be more radical from the outset than he was - instead he extended his longevity with the aid of a compliantly obstructive (yes, that's possible!) Senate.)
:lol: indeed.

No I don't care for a guess. While most seasoned (and balanced) adults (I firmly include you in that category) will accept that in their life-time, there will be approx. equal years of Lib and Lab, my main thrust here is to defrag the newly-hatched lefties from their simplistic ideals.

This episode certainly won't change a government. Its not sufficient in size and there will have to be many more episodes like this to have traction and furthermore there will need to be an opposition capable of making hay. That's all way too far down the track for me to comment.

Basil
11-03-2008, 05:42 PM
Howard had a penchant for throwing ad-hoc "cash bonuses" out to various groups, often just prior to an election, and often completely separate from the usual allowances or pensions - the result is a godawful mess of allowances and bonuses that takes a tax accountant to figure out.
I assume you had the class and self-respect to acknowledge and put that identical argument when the GST was introduced cleaning up a raft of hidden and outmoded taxes.

As for the bone-throwing, I don't deny it, but again it's as old as the hills with al players well at it. Again, if that's all you've got in defence of this monumental cock-up, I'm liking this situation more by the minute.

ITS A BALLS UP, JERRY - A RIGHT ROYAL COCK-UP!

pax
11-03-2008, 06:09 PM
(1) the country would be drowning in a sea of marching, venting, mealy-mouthed lefties screaming crap about not representing the under-privileged.
(2) the opposition left of Kevin, Julia, Wayne et al belting out the OUT OF TOUCH WITH ORDINARY AUSTRALIANS mantra.
(3) Every bloody union and associated axe-grinding bleeding heart would be out in support.

Isn't that basically what is happening, except in reverse?

1) A bunch of people (a mix of lefties and conservatives that just want the opportunity of beating up on Rudd) are howling about the Government leaving carers/oldies in the lurch
2) The opposition left of Nelson and Turnbull are wailing about the Government's lack of compassion

pax
11-03-2008, 06:13 PM
I assume you had the class and self-respect to acknowledge and put that identical argument when the GST was introduced cleaning up a raft of hidden and outmoded taxes.
Actually, I did. In a public debate, taking the side "that the GST would be good for Australia" (we won btw).

I had serious concerns about the GST being regressive compared to the income tax which it replaced (which it is), but there was certainly no disputing that the tax code was (and probably still is) too complicated with too many taxes and levies.

pax
11-03-2008, 06:15 PM
Again, if that's all you've got in defence of this monumental cock-up, I'm liking this situation more by the minute.

Sorry, what's a cock-up? That the government wants to simplify a bunch of ad-hoc benefits and bonuses? Or that the opposition is going to howl loud enough to make it politically impossible?

Basil
11-03-2008, 06:25 PM
Isn't that basically what is happening, except in reverse?
Jon, I don't want to say it a third time. So for the second time, I am highlighting the double standard at play.

The double standard is not that the current situation is a reversal of what has happened when government & opposition roles were reversed. That's all part of the politicking of the last 100 years in the western world, viz the "the mob in government are cretins and are heartless".

The double standard is the pathetic misapprehension promoted by many newly-indoctrinated hatched lefties that somehow the Labor Party is the party of caring lord protectors which stands between the evil abyss of the rich and all good right-thinking men.

So while I make no comment (here) as to whether the policy is a good one, and no comment (here) as to whether the Liberals are doing what Labor would have done had the situation been reversed, I am pointing out that when daddy says

"Those Liberals will cut away the very fabric of your soul but salt of the earth Labor will be there to catch you", daddy was either a lying hound or more likely a clueless victim of what his daddy had told him.

Basil
11-03-2008, 06:29 PM
Sorry, what's a cock-up? That the government wants to simplify a bunch of ad-hoc benefits and bonuses? Or that the opposition is going to howl loud enough to make it politically impossible?
You're just obfuscating. When you say "what's the cockup" and offer two non-candidate answers, do you mean to demonstrate that you don't believe the Labor party has cocked this up? If you'll now state that there has been no cock-up, I'll state the bleeding obvious answer your question and tell you what the cock-up is.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 06:36 PM
Actually, I did. In a public debate, taking the side "that the GST would be good for Australia" (we won btw).
Most commendable.


I had serious concerns about the GST being regressive compared to the income tax which it replaced (which it is),
Hang on, the GST replaced the raft of variable sales taxes and some (not nearly enough) of the state taxes that were just as regressive but had no consistency or sound reason.


but there was certainly no disputing that the tax code was (and probably still is) too complicated with too many taxes and levies.
Yes, and the state stamp duty is hurting homebuyers, and state payroll taxes still fine employers for hiring people.

The LDP's 30/30 is the only proposal I've seen that's a sensible tax system. Tinkering around with the current monstrosity won't help.

pax
11-03-2008, 06:45 PM
You're just obfuscating. When you say "what's the cockup" and offer two non-candidate answers, do you mean to demonstrate that you don't believe the Labor party has cocked this up? If you'll now state that there has been no cock-up, I'll state the bleeding obvious answer your question and tell you what the cock-up is.
Why don't you enlighten me? I really don't know what you are referring to..

Basil
11-03-2008, 07:27 PM
Why don't you enlighten me? I really don't know what you are referring to..
Amazing. It's what we've been talking about all day.

1. Rudd Overseas (convenient).
2. Scraping 2 allowances - carers and pensioners (surely not tha battlas!).
3. Associating the scraping with belt-tightening (it's the economy, stupid).
4. Backlash.
5. Staring into a camera and saying (we'll save ya - no one gets left in the lurch on Kev's watch). How f***ing emabarrassing. I think you'll be surprised at how many people see the duplicity - even if you won't.

There was no mention of reinstating the withdrawn benefits, save for a slightly increased utilities allowance. That was the policy as taken out with the trash late last week, while Teflon Boy was overseas.

Labor's quick patch-up job? Now, there might be something in the budget. Labor says "we don't know what it is or if we do, we're not telling you!".

The country is in uproar. Labor is on the back foot. If you don't think that is a cock up, fine. You can change your handle to Robinson Crusoe anytime you like.

Axiom
11-03-2008, 07:34 PM
the punch and judy show rolls on.....

Basil
11-03-2008, 07:49 PM
the punch and judy show rolls on.....
No that's me done. It's a straight Labor cock-up. Everyone's calling it -
The right (of course)
The media (all)
The left (genuine ones)

These things only turn into Punch and Judy in the face of obfuscation. As I say, I'm done on this issue (with pax anyway).

pax
11-03-2008, 10:49 PM
1. Rudd Overseas (convenient).
Hardly a cock up though.


2. Scraping 2 allowances - carers and pensioners (surely not tha battlas!).
Haven't we just been talking about how this is not necessarily a bad thing?

3. Associating the scraping with belt-tightening (it's the economy, stupid).
Who said this, outside of media speculation? I don't recall anyone in the Gov saying it. It's not clear to me that there was ever any intention that carers and oldies would be worse off - just that a silly ad-hoc 'bonus' would be merged into the normal payment system.


5. Staring into a camera and saying (we'll save ya - no one gets left in the lurch on Kev's watch). How f***ing emabarrassing. I think you'll be surprised at how many people see the duplicity - even if you won't.
The problem is that the howling from the media and the opposition may actually prevent a sensible reform from taking place and as a result Howard's silly "bonuses" may be cemented in perpetuity.

The media hoohar is not good for the Government, but it's more beat-up than cock-up.


There was no mention of reinstating the withdrawn benefits, save for a slightly increased utilities allowance. That was the policy as taken out with the trash late last week, while Teflon Boy was overseas.
This was not a policy announcement - this was the media picking up a tidbit from here and there and putting two and two together.

Basil
12-03-2008, 06:14 AM
Backflip!

Kev's guaranteed the payment. Now, the scraped bonuses - which were they?

a) Bad policy and Rudd has weakened by implementing them? or
b) Good policy and Rudd was out of touch, but been coerced into putting them back.

pax
12-03-2008, 01:44 PM
Backflip!

Kev's guaranteed the payment. Now, the scraped bonuses - which were they?

a) Bad policy and Rudd has weakened by implementing them? or
b) Good policy and Rudd was out of touch, but been coerced into putting them back.
Ok. Now it's a cock up. Those responsible:
-Labor for being gutless, and failing to stick to their guns.
-The opposition for pathetic carping about an issue that was nothing more than a political covenience to them, and to which they probably were not ideologically opposed. In particular for insisting that the Governmint guarantee these specific bonuses (as opposed to consolidating them in some other way).
-The media for turning it into a massive beat up.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-03-2008, 09:05 PM
Ok. Now it's a cock up. Those responsible:
-Labor for being gutless, and failing to stick to their guns.
-The opposition for pathetic carping about an issue that was nothing more than a political covenience to them, and to which they probably were not ideologically opposed. In particular for insisting that the Governmint guarantee these specific bonuses (as opposed to consolidating them in some other way).
-The media for turning it into a massive beat up.
When Howard did a backflip, was opposition and media responsible as well?

NB. The policy of the one-off payment is dubious, to say the least.

Basil
12-03-2008, 09:10 PM
NB. The policy of the one-off payment is dubious, to say the least.
In your limited or considered opinion?

Igor_Goldenberg
13-03-2008, 06:45 AM
In your limited or considered opinion?
It's always both:D

pax
13-03-2008, 10:19 AM
When Howard did a backflip, was opposition and media responsible as well?
On some occasions, certainly.

Basil
18-03-2008, 01:05 AM
Case #1
Wollongong council corruption (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23256359-2,00.html)

Case #2
James Reyne says Garrett has "sold Melbourne out" over green dredging issue (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/05/1202090421845.html). Objection Upheld.

Case #3
Not sure if building a monument to self (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23303906-421,00.html) :rolleyes: counts. No doubt what the reaction would have been if another party did same while in government? :doh: [/rhetorical]

Case #4
The Carers' payment Ruddflip (http://au.news.yahoo.com/080307/2/162wx.html). The belt-tightening, not belt-tightening, helping the less well-off, not helping the less well-off bungled leadership while overseas thingo which just ended up being Howard government policy.

Case #5
Defence Backflip (http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news/article.php?cat=intNews&categoryid=5&articleid=1038). Laba belted the Libs in the election campaign over this purchase and then, you'd never believe ... Laba adopted the Libs' policy. FFS - the people are morons of Latham proportions. I did warn you. Incompetent boobs. Big on talk. Suck the low-brows (and of course the newly-hatched) right in. You'll be murdered in your beds. Just wait until they start playing with the money :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 01:24 AM
Defence Backflip (http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news/article.php?cat=intNews&categoryid=5&articleid=1038). Laba belted the Libs in the election campaign over this purchase and then, you'd never believe ... Laba adopted the Libs' policy. FFS — the people are morons of Latham proportions. I did warn you. Incompetent boobs. Big on talk. Suck the low-brows (and of course the newly-hatched) right in. You'll be murdered in your beds. Just wait until they start playing with the money :wall:
And just wait till Mizz Wong tells the sheeple how much tribute they will have to give to the Green Gods (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/australia-confronts-the-cold-hard-facts/2008/03/16/1205602195051.html):


THE Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, warns the Government's plan to cut greenhouse gases will produce the biggest shake-up to the economy in decades, and she has promised to set out by July how households and businesses will be hit.

It will be Laba's traditional supporters who will pay for the limousine lefty warm-mongering by jetsetting hypocrites like Wong and alGore.

pax
18-03-2008, 05:53 PM
Case #5
Defence Backflip (http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news/article.php?cat=intNews&categoryid=5&articleid=1038). Laba belted the Libs in the election campaign over this purchase and then, you'd never believe ... Laba adopted the Libs' policy. FFS - the people are morons of Latham proportions. I did warn you. Incompetent boobs. Big on talk. Suck the low-brows (and of course the newly-hatched) right in. You'll be murdered in your beds. Just wait until they start playing with the money :wall:
It doesn't mean it wasn't a Lib cockup though. With things like humungous defence contracts, the cost of backing out can be (much) greater than the cost of going through with a poorly negotiated contract.

Basil
18-03-2008, 07:22 PM
It doesn't mean it wasn't a Lib cockup though. With things like humungous defence contracts, the cost of backing out can be (much) greater than the cost of going through with a poorly negotiated contract.
Well you can go back to being Robinson Crusoe again. Me, the Libs and the Laba Party say otherwise. Laba's hook at this stage is that in the last 100 days the product has had all its issues ironed out :wall:

Basil
29-03-2008, 05:43 PM
Case #1
Wollongong council corruption (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23256359-2,00.html)

Case #2
James Reyne says Garrett has "sold Melbourne out" over green dredging issue (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/05/1202090421845.html). Objection Upheld.

Case #3
Not sure if building a monument to self (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23303906-421,00.html) :rolleyes: counts. No doubt what the reaction would have been if another party did same while in government? :doh: [/rhetorical]

Case #4
The Carers' payment Ruddflip (http://au.news.yahoo.com/080307/2/162wx.html). The belt-tightening, not belt-tightening, helping the less well-off, not helping the less well-off bungled leadership while overseas thingo which just ended up being Howard government policy.

Case #5
Defence Backflip (http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news/article.php?cat=intNews&categoryid=5&articleid=1038). Laba belted the Libs in the election campaign over this purchase and then, you'd never believe ... Laba adopted the Libs' policy. FFS - the people are morons of Latham proportions. I did warn you. Incompetent boobs. Big on talk. Suck the low-brows (and of course the newly-hatched) right in. You'll be murdered in your beds. Just wait until they start playing with the money :wall:

Case #6
Labor's tax cuts (http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23447218-462,00.html) This is Howard government policy. $100 HCDs to the first person to find a quote where Labor made pre-election mileage out of belittling this policy. $50 HCDs to anyone who find a Lefty on this board saying it wasn't the answer.

Basil
29-03-2008, 06:05 PM
Case #6 (today) also occurred while Rudd was (conveniently) OS. Any doubts about Golden Boy yet? (I'm talking to those who have independent control of their own minds of course).

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2008, 06:15 PM
Case #6 (today) also occurred while Rudd was (conveniently) OS. Any doubts about Golden Boy yet? (I'm talking to those who have independent control of their own minds of course).

I have plenty of doubts about Rudd, and pretty much all of them were there before the election. Primarily I doubt his commitment to pretty much any form of liberty and suspect him of intending little real reform beyond symbolics and retractions of some of his predecessor's errors.

But that, at worst, puts me in the same position as those in circa 1993 who had plenty of doubts about Clinton, but still knew they had done the right thing by throwing out Bush Snr.

Basil
29-03-2008, 06:18 PM
I have plenty of doubts about Rudd, and pretty much all of them were there before the election. Primarily I doubt his commitment to pretty much any form of liberty and suspect him of intending little real reform beyond symbolics and retractions of some of his predecessor's errors.

But that, at worst, puts me in the same position as those in circa 1993 who had plenty of doubts about Clinton, but still knew they had done the right thing by throwing out Bush Snr.
Good post, if you don't mind my saying so. Not because I agree with its conclusion, but because it's all anyone from the 'opposite side' could ever ask.

Capablanca-Fan
29-03-2008, 07:19 PM
I have plenty of doubts about Rudd, and pretty much all of them were there before the election. Primarily I doubt his commitment to pretty much any form of liberty and suspect him of intending little real reform beyond symbolics and retractions of some of his predecessor's errors.
And we haven't see what is planned when he imposes huge taxes on petrol and electricity on us plebs. Of course he won't be affected too much himself being married to a millionaire.


But that, at worst, puts me in the same position as those in circa 1993 who had plenty of doubts about Clinton, but still knew they had done the right thing by throwing out Bush Snr.
How was Bush "read my lips" Snr. worse than the Klintons?

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2008, 12:21 AM
And we haven't see what is planned when he imposes huge taxes on petrol and electricity on us plebs. Of course he won't be affected too much himself being married to a millionaire.

If he does intend to do this he will have to be extremely careful how he targets the taxes - if he intends to be re-elected any more than perhaps once anyway.

I think he'll find that regulation of business is a more politically palatable path.


How was Bush "read my lips" Snr. worse than the Klintons?

That is a difficult question because depending on your perception you can say Bill Clinton was bad in any number of ways. It's also not necessarily the question to ask, because of the strategic-voting view (which I adhere to) that a sufficiently bad leader should be thrown out whether the alternative is actually worse or not.

Bush Snr promised not to raise taxes, in his undue desperation to beat Dukakis (who he ended up crushing anyway). He then raised them anyway causing some of his conservative base to go to Clinton (and also probably contributing to the pox-on-both-your-houses appeal of Ross Perot). He was an indifferent economic manager who was over-obsessed with foreign policy and who was far too willing to suck up to very illiberal moralist reactionaries like Pat Buchanan to try to get re-elected.

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 12:40 AM
If he does intend to do this he will have to be extremely careful how he targets the taxes — if he intends to be re-elected any more than perhaps once anyway.
Or else he does the usual trick of tyrants: steal people's liberties gradually, and in the name of the greater good.


I think he'll find that regulation of business is a more politically palatable path.
If the business community were sensible, they would counter it by showing that consumers would be the victims of the higher prices they would be forced to charge to cover costs.


That is a difficult question because depending on your perception you can say Bill Clinton was bad in any number of ways. It's also not necessarily the question to ask, because of the strategic-voting view (which I adhere to) that a sufficiently bad leader should be thrown out whether the alternative is actually worse or not.
German voters once thought that the Weimar republic needed to be thrown out, since obviously nothing could be worse.


Bush Snr promised not to raise taxes, in his undue desperation to beat Dukakis (who he ended up crushing anyway).
Yes, Americans didn't want a president who cared more about freeing dangerous murderers like Willie Horton than the people the crooks terrorized. Actually it was alGore who first raised this—even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


He then raised them anyway causing some of his conservative base to go to Clinton (and also probably contributing to the pox-on-both-your-houses appeal of Ross Perot).
And it was dreadful economic policy anyway.

Aaron Guthrie
30-03-2008, 02:17 PM
Case #6
Labor's tax cuts (http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23447218-462,00.html) This is Howard government policy. $100 HCDs to the first person to find a quote where Labor made pre-election mileage out of belittling this policy. $50 HCDs to anyone who find a Lefty on this board saying it wasn't the answer.It was a bad policy to copy (in objective terms, not political). It is just nuts- listen to the, it ain't inflationary argument-


Dr Nelson said he did not believe the tax cuts would be inflationary.

"The tax cuts are very important, What they will do is reduce the pressure on wage rises which are already coming from the unionsWill reducing wage rises help when the reason they no longer need to rise is because peoples disposable income has increased?!?


and they'll also encourage people to get back into the workforce,'' Dr Nelson said.Errrr?!

Maybe it is the fault of the article writer to put the response by Nelson as an argument against inflation though.

Basil
30-03-2008, 08:27 PM
The point of this thread is neither the spin of the story (which was supplied just as basic reference in case anyone thought I was dreamin') nor the quality of the policy - but simply that Labor's best plan is a Liberal one.

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 11:20 PM
It was a bad policy to copy (in objective terms, not political).
Why? Why should money be better in the government's pockers rather than in the pockets of those who earned it. People are less likely to be wasteful of their own money than someone else's, which explains the copious government waste.


It is just nuts- listen to the, it ain't inflationary argument-
I prefer to listen to Reagan's: inflation occurs not because the people are living too well, but because the government is living too well. And why should the people spending more of their own money more inflationary than government spending it?

Tax cuts should not be portrayed as government generosity in giving its money to the people, but as the government being less greedy for the people's money.

pax
30-03-2008, 11:29 PM
The point of this thread is neither the spin of the story (which was supplied just as basic reference in case anyone thought I was dreamin') nor the quality of the policy - but simply that Labor's best plan is a Liberal one.
Copying good policies is good politics. Unfortunately, I suspect this does not fall into that category..

pax
30-03-2008, 11:31 PM
And why should the people spending more of their own money more inflationary than government spending it?
It's not, but government keeping it and not spending it now is certainly less inflationary (hence future funds, super bonuses etc) ;)

Aaron Guthrie
30-03-2008, 11:31 PM
Why?Inflation.
I prefer to listen to Reagan's: inflation occurs not because the people are living too well, but because the government is living too well. And why should the people spending more of their own money more inflationary than government spending it?The govt. shouldn't spend it. (I guess govt. spending is, or at least can be, less inflationary than consumer, but arguing this isn't important to my position.)

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 11:40 PM
Inflation.
Inflation occurs mainly when government prints money.


The govt. shouldn't spend it. (I guess govt. spending is, or at least can be, less inflationary than consumer, but arguing this isn't important to my position.)
Ever known a government not to spend? Far better to entrust the money to those who actually earned it.

Reagan:

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it.

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 11:41 PM
It's not, but government keeping it and not spending it now is certainly less inflationary (hence future funds, super bonuses etc) ;)
Again, why trust the government to confiscate our money and keep it?

Igor_Goldenberg
31-03-2008, 10:23 AM
Do tax cuts fuel inflation?

The short answer is - it depends. If instead government spends the money on any program, the inflationary pressure is higher. If instead it repays the debt, the overall effect on inflation can be positive. Please note, however, that inflation by itself is just an indicator of possible problems.

Inflation, by it's nature, means devalue of money. It happens when amount of the money circulating in the economy grows faster then goods and services produced.

Generally, tax cuts leave more money in our hands, leading to more goods and services produced in a more optimal way. It also reduces some distortions and disincentives in the market, leading to a higher production. As a result, tax cuts actually help to curb the inflation, especially in the long term.

In general, government spending has a higher inflationary pressure then a private spending, because it produces less goods and services.

Government can, of course, just cancel the money out of the circulation, but it would be a classical way of cure being worse (much worse!) then a decease.

Basil
19-04-2008, 12:35 AM
Rudd presents his seventh case in support of my assertion post-election (and prior :wall:) that the left are entirely and utterly clueless. Always have been. Always will be. And will be voted out eventually because of incompetency. Always have. Always will be.

Another piece of botched dreamin', model-making, disaster-fodder that the electorate will no doubt keep sucking up and excusing for a while yet. After all, that other bloke was Mr Children Overboard :wall: :wall: :wall: You facile idiots!

Case #1
Wollongong council corruption (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23256359-2,00.html)

Case #2
James Reyne says Garrett has "sold Melbourne out" over green dredging issue (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/05/1202090421845.html). Objection Upheld.

Case #3
Not sure if building a monument to self (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23303906-421,00.html) :rolleyes: counts. No doubt what the reaction would have been if another party did same while in government? :doh: [/rhetorical]

Case #4
The Carers' payment Ruddflip (http://au.news.yahoo.com/080307/2/162wx.html). The belt-tightening, not belt-tightening, helping the less well-off, not helping the less well-off bungled leadership while overseas thingo which just ended up being Howard government policy.

Case #5
Defence Backflip (http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news/article.php?cat=intNews&categoryid=5&articleid=1038). Laba belted the Libs in the election campaign over this purchase and then, you'd never believe ... Laba adopted the Libs' policy. FFS - the people are morons of Latham proportions. I did warn you. Incompetent boobs. Big on talk. Suck the low-brows (and of course the newly-hatched) right in. You'll be murdered in your beds. Just wait until they start playing with the money :wall:

Case #6
Labor's tax cuts (http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23447218-462,00.html) This is Howard government policy. $100 HCDs to the first person to find a quote where Labor made pre-election mileage out of belittling this policy. $50 HCDs to anyone who find a Lefty on this board saying it wasn't the answer.

Case #7
Savings Scheme. Yes, the pretty boys (and girl) present 'A Piece Of Elementary Crap' in A Major. The savings plan
a) is too complicated
b) can favour rich savers
c) doesn't work

This comes hot on the heels of KRudd doing SFA overseas (while difficult policy was snucK out - Mr Teflon remember - proteKt Chairman Teflon at all costs).

Read all about the Dreamin Fools' latest effort (which you've paid for) here:
pork barreling (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080207-Political-considerations-take-the-edge-off-Rudds-savings-plan.html)
useless (http://www.crikey.com.au/Election-2007/20071105-Rudds-first-home-owner-saver-account.html)
unfair (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/17/1208025380919.html)

Garvinator
19-04-2008, 01:33 AM
BTW Howie, I would like to add to this list, FuelWatch, as a really do nothing but make it look like doing something substantial piece of policy.

Basil
19-04-2008, 01:36 AM
BTW Howie, I would like to add to this list, FuelWatch, as a really do nothing but make it look like doing something substantial piece of policy.
May well be true. I'd like to give it a bit more time yet, though. Until (if) it's played out in all its romantic stupidity.

Garvinator
19-04-2008, 01:38 AM
May well be true. I'd like to give it a bit more time yet, though. Until (if) it's played out in all its romantic stupidity.
I also just wanted to be the first to call it as romantic stupidity ;)

Spiny Norman
19-04-2008, 06:08 AM
FuelWatch strikes me as (yet another) futile attempt to manipulate the market. Those with the vested financial interests will find (yet another) way to get around the restrictions. Those who will end up paying for all this (yet again) is the consumer.

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2008, 05:07 PM
FuelWatch strikes me as (yet another) futile attempt to manipulate the market. Those with the vested financial interests will find (yet another) way to get around the restrictions. Those who will end up paying for all this (yet again) is the consumer.
It's just crap. For all the expense of the bureacracy, even at best it is likely to save us only 2c/l on average. But worse, this is only the average price. By sticking its fat beaks into the market, the government is likely to even out the weekly cycle, so drivers won't be able to fill up as cheaply on Tuesday.

And it's all moot anyway. Once they apply their green lunacy to the next budget, the 2c/l reduction will be swamped by the massive increase because of green taxes. And if low-income Labor supporters suffer as a result, serves them bloody right for voting for the morons.

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2008, 03:32 AM
What a surprise:


Many of the ideas were already Labor poli (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/over-to-you-mr-rudd/2008/04/20/1208629731239.html)cies or very similar. These included the two-step stage towards a republic, a single national school curriculum, the recognition of indigenous people in the constitution, and greater engagement with Asia.

And among the loopy left nonsense to increase government bureaucratoc control of our lives at this CO2-spewing gabfest:


One idea aired was to strip every Australian of their citizenship (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/04/19/1208025537171.html)and only re-issue it to those people who could prove they were environment-climate friendly.


... and a new tax on alcohol, junk food and cigarettes to pay for the creation of a national preventive health agency.

This agency would either enforce 30 minutes' exercise a day for those with sedentary jobs (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/over-to-you-mr-rudd/2008/04/20/1208629731239.html)or reopen stairwells in office blocks that are closed for security.

Spiny Norman
22-04-2008, 06:18 AM
I couldn't bring myself to watch any of the summit material on TV. The whole thing strikes me as an exercise in image management. The fact that the opposition was sucked in to the process was particularly disappointing.

What a senseless waste of time and effort. The CO2 emissions from all those windbags ought to have been captured and sequestered underground (preferably along with the windbags themselves).

Basil
22-04-2008, 02:24 PM
The whole thing strikes me as an exercise in image management.
The entire Rudd tenure to date has been an exercise image management.


The fact that the opposition was sucked in to the process was particularly disappointing.
I don't think it had any choice. To blackball from the get go was the path of sour grapes especially while a significant proportion of the electorate is quite delirious over anything Rudd etc. ('mazing). Better to be in involved and let the thing survive or otherwise on its merits.

Capablanca-Fan
23-04-2008, 05:41 PM
Bright ideas fade under controversy (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23584546-2702,00.html)
Imre Salusinszky
The Australian, 23 April 2008


THE unity and goodwill that radiated from Kevin Rudd's 2020 Summit last weekend have evaporated, with some participants saying they cannot recognise the "big ideas" attributed to them while others claim they were "systematically silenced".

Delegates to the productivity, indigenous, rural and community services sessions at the summit have told The Australian they felt railroaded into signing off on the agenda of those chairing and facilitating their streams.

They say the division of the streams into sub-groups was arbitrary and confusing, with the loudest voices often prevailing and too little time for discussion.

Rudd's mates steer the ship
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun 23 April 2008


WHY bother much with voters? Kevin Rudd now takes his cues from a hand-picked elite.

Last weekend 1000 of our "best and brightest" — as chosen by the Prime Minister and his mates — ended their two-day "ideas summit" by handing Rudd his policies.

This may have surprised you since it is only five months ago that you voted in as Prime Minister a man who'd said he already "had a plan for the future".

Well, scratch that. The voters last year let Rudd down by giving him just 52.7 per cent backing for a platform he'd had to make mild and unscary to win over the mugs.

So he last weekend got himself what he really wanted: 99 per cent support from his newest best friends for a much richer plan.

These friends are well-connected people you never voted for, but they have what Rudd craves — star appeal, and the full spectrum of fashionable thought from A to B, as in (Phillip) Adams to (Cate) Blanchett.

Yes, they are largely Leftists from our cultural elite, some with such an inflated sense of their worth that they claimed to be at Parliament House to represent you, dear voter, without ever having bothered to ask if you agreed.

Not surprisingly, these are also people who've turned out to have an agenda very different to the one you thought you gave Rudd last November.

For instance, I don't recall Rudd at the last election talking about a vote on a republic within two years, or a bill of rights giving judges more say over politicians, or a whole new tax system including who knows what new tax, or 20 new government bureaucracies, eating your money by the billions.

Labor dreams they may have been, but Rudd kept mum on them.

...

I say that because every sign is that the summiteers were pulled together to give Rudd exactly the mandate voters never got around to giving him - a mandate for what Labor wanted to really do, but was too afraid to ask.

First step in this con was to select a crowd that would agree to any scheme involving Big Government, global warming alarmism and the rest.

And so of the 1000 delegates, an astonishing 118 came from a single Left-wing activist group, GetUp, whose former spokesman is now Rudd's press secretary. Dozens of serving and former Labor politicians were also dragged in, from Bob Carr and Barry Jones to John "No Water" Thwaites and even Joan Kirner.

Naturally, heads of the biggest green groups were drafted, such as WWF's Greg Bourne and the Australian Conservation Foundation's Ian Lowe, as were a whole glacier of professional global warming alarmists, from Tanya Ha to Tim Flannery. They were joined by a dozen past or present ABC staff, including David Marr, Geraldine Doogue and Jeff McMullin, and a generation of "stolen generations" propagandists such as Robert Manne, Lowitja O'Donoghue and Pat Dodson.

Spiny Norman
24-04-2008, 07:00 AM
... 118 came from a single Left-wing activist group, GetUp, whose former spokesman is now Rudd's press secretary ...
... and there you have it ... deck was stacked right from the get go.

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2008, 10:21 AM
Kevin Rudd Lies (http://www.kevinruddlies.com)

Desmond
24-04-2008, 11:36 AM
Is anyone able to give me a definition of "working family"? Is it just another term for humans?

Basil
24-04-2008, 11:48 AM
Is anyone able to give me a definition of "working family"? Is it just another term for humans?
:lol: Cha ching! The point is that many of the not-as-smart-as-Boris felt instantly drawn to anyone who uttered the words - a la focus groups.

eclectic
24-04-2008, 12:21 PM
Is anyone able to give me a definition of "working family"? Is it just another term for humans?

a working family would be one where the members therein collectively work for only one hour per fortnight :rolleyes:

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2008, 06:47 PM
rEVHZly21Kk&hl=en

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2008, 11:51 AM
Nanny’s a ninny (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_nannys_a_ninny/)
Andrew Bolt
7 April 2008


FIRST the Government came for your alcopops. Then it decided it didn’t like your pizza, either … or even the plastic bag you carried it in.

And suddenly a new breed of puritan is swarming all over you, figuring new taxes to punish you for not leading the pure life they preach.

How did we let so many nannies get so much control over even our dinner?

The near doubling of the tax on alcopops this month is the latest sign that fingerwaggers of the organic-sandals faith need muzzling.

That tax slug by the Rudd Government will steal $500 million a year from drinkers on the sole grounds that it’s for their own good—to save them from the risk they’ll get blind.

But once that excuse is accepted, there’s no limit to what other pain may be inflicted on you to make you a finer, healthier, kinder, greener citizen.

And, bingo, the Australian Medical Association instantly called for more taxes on soft drinks and junk food, too, to stop you dining on stuff that makes you happy but has a health Nazi hyperventilating over the fatty you may one day become.

Even that’s not enough for the Government’s preventative health task force, which is demanding a 300 per cent increase in beer and wine taxes. For your own good, of course.

Oh, and task force chairman Rob Moodie also wants another 2.5c tax on each cigarette.

Now there’s barely a political busybody in the land that hasn’t got this bug for taxing other people’s pleasures of which they disapprove.



So drunk have such busybodies got on the idea of ordering around people (for their own good, etc) that the 1000 “best and brightest” at the Prime Minister’s ideas summit even proposed a scheme—last introduced by the Chinese dictator Mao Zedong—to get bosses to give office workers 30 minutes a day of exercises.

Forced exercises? Are these people insane?

Well, no. They merely demonstrate how dangerous that “for-your-own-good” excuse is when plied by the social reformer.

It’s as author and philosopher C.S. Lewis (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5052/) warned:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive … The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2008, 11:58 AM
Treasury slams Labor's IR plan (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23657903-601,00.html)
Dennis Shanahan, Political editor
The Australian, 7 May 2008


LABOR'S industrial relations changes are likely to trigger job losses and higher inflation that will ultimately create "wage-price spirals" and drive up interest rates, according to Treasury's official analysis of the plan to scrap Work Choices.

The Treasury critique also finds that limiting unfair dismissal laws will cut jobs, increase red tape for small business and make it more difficult for people to move from welfare to work.

The disclosure of the highly critical economic assessment of the plan to scrap John Howard's Work Choices laws came as Wayne Swan insisted that fighting inflation and taking price pressures off working families were the Government's prime budget objectives.

The Reserve Bank also warned yesterday of the danger of a wages breakout forcing interest rates higher, putting the Government on notice after Victorian teachers this week won a massive pay rise from the state Government that could trigger follow-up claims.



According to the secret Treasury advice, the department, under Treasury secretary Ken Henry, concluded that the abolition of AWAs and the return of guaranteed penalty rates would cut jobs, put "upward pressure on prices", create more "flow-on" wage claims from sectors such as mining to less productive sectors and allow unions to "bid wages up above their market level".



But the Treasury analysis of the abolition of AWAs and the move to protect penalty rates, overtime and holiday pay found the changes would lead to "reduced flexibility".

"This reduced flexibility, together with forcing business to pay higher rates of pay during certain hours of business, is likely to lead to lower levels of employment," the minute says.

"The shift to a more centralised wage system might reduce employment and increase inflation. For example, higher unit costs, either through higher real labour costs, lower productivity, or a combination of both, will place upward pressures on prices, which effectively lowers real disposable incomes, consumer spending and thus employment. The rate of flow-on of wage increases from high-productivity firms and sectors to low-productivity ones may increase. Reinstalling union power will raise the ability of unions to bid wages up above their market level."



Treasury said Labor's plan to lower the limit for unfair dismissal claims from employers with 100 to 15 employees was likely to cost jobs.

Southpaw Jim
07-05-2008, 12:13 PM
Interesting that this analysis was made prior to Rudd releasing the policy.

I suspect that the Treasury advice was commissioned on the assumption that Rudd was advocating a return to centralised wage fixing (as opposed to enterprise level agreements), which is clearly not the case.

The devil is in the detail..

WRT taxing of alcohol, I see no problem with the taxing of goods to address negative externalities by encouraging behavioural modification. Do you advocate alcohol and tobacco be only subject to GST and nothing else, notwithstanding the significant health costs that the consumption of these imposes on the community?

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2008, 12:27 PM
I suspect that the Treasury advice was commissioned on the assumption that Rudd was advocating a return to centralised wage fixing (as opposed to enterprise level agreements), which is clearly not the case.
It still discusses the concrete changes that KRudd was promising, e.g. abolishing AWAs and extending unfair dismissal laws to companies with only 15 employees as opposed to 100.


WRT taxing of alcohol, I see no problem with the taxing of goods to address negative externalities by encouraging behavioural modification. Do you advocate alcohol and tobacco be only subject to GST and nothing else, notwithstanding the significant health costs that the consumption of these imposes on the community?
Yes. If you're really concerned about health costs on the community, you could be more consistent and advocate prohibition. Otherwise the government has a strong financial incentive to keep these going. And about costs on the community, that is a problem with socialism, not liberty. I.e. get rid of socialized medicine so we don't have to pay when others deliberately harm their own bodies.

Otherwise where does it end? The things Andrew Bolt cites are logical continuations of the nanny state attitude.

Desmond
07-05-2008, 12:59 PM
I have heard arguments that increasing the cost of RTD alcohol will reduce the teenager binge-drinking problem. That doesn't wash with me.

I quite like the RTDs, they (used to) cost a bit more, but I tended to drink less because you don't have the problem of drinks gettting progressively stronger as the night goes on.

Desmond
07-05-2008, 01:15 PM
Isn't the GST meant to be 10% across the board anyway? Why have these extra taxes at all?

Garvinator
07-05-2008, 01:20 PM
Isn't the GST meant to be 10% across the board anyway? Why have these extra taxes at all?
This is the fundamental question. It was a 'long' time ago and I do not remember the detail, but my understanding was that the GST was meant to replace all other taxes except for income tax.

That meant stamp duty etc all gone. If this had occurred, then the states would be absolutely rolling in buckets of money, instead of the current cobbled together system.

Garvinator
07-05-2008, 01:25 PM
From The Australian, the wry side. I think this article will appeal to Jono ;)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23650047-23375,00.html

THE WRY SIDE: Louise Evans | May 06, 2008


Drunk, intoxicated, juiced, stupefied, inebriated, wasted, smashed, wrecked, soaked, under the weather, out of it, plastered, off your tits, pickled, boozed, under the influence, sloshed, tipsy, oiled, legless, paralytic, tired and emotional, tiddly, zonked, blotto, tanked, pie-eyed ...

FOR his 21st birthday, Mick Booners got 15 ashtrays. Booners doesn't smoke but he had a famous ashtray party trick born from a night of what's now labelled binge drinking.

When a mate accidentally knocked his rum and Coke into an ashtray, Booners drained the ashtray, butts and all, arguing: "You can't waste a good rum and Coke." The ashtray stunt became legendary, hence the 15 ashtrays from his mates for his coming of age. To this day Booners keeps his cufflinks in a crystal ashtray engraved with his name from his 21st.

Booners isn't proud of the binge drinking he did in his youth. When he was 21 it was called a big night out. But it didn't do him any harm, either. He and his mates never got their faces smashed in. They never glassed anyone's face. They never got their drinks spiked. They never ended up unconscious in a park with drugs in their pockets. They didn't become alcoholics, welfare recipients, criminals or dysfunctional elite athletes.

Booners is in excellent health. His liver is in great shape and so are his old drinking mates. They all finished uni and got jobs and careers. Most got married, a mortgage and a couple of kids who, like their parents and grandparents before them, will go out and get shit-faced on whatever they can get their hands on. And they'll get up to the same mischief as their forefathers, regardless of which government imposes which tax on whichever drink is top of the pops.

When Booners and his schoolmates get together for a few light beers these days, they reminisce about the good old days when they drank until they fell over.

Those were the days before alcopops, random breath testing and light beer. When light beer was introduced, Booners and his mates couldn't understand why anyone would pay the same for half the bang.

They used to have a tradition: on Easter Saturday and Boxing Day, they would drive up the coast for the weekend, stay at the local caravan park, walk to the pub and do a 10-to-10 session. It was a last-man-standing competition. The next day they'd all go surfing. These were legendary weekends of mateship, bonding and drinking. They joke now that if they'd bought shares instead of beers, they'd own the pub.

On Sundays after the footy they'd go to a come-as-you-are nightclub where dress standards were relaxed to pull the after-match crowd. The price and number of drinks were irrelevant. Booners's mate Brett would put his taxi fare in his top pocket and drink until the money in his trousers ran out, or he took a shine to a sheila, or it was closing time. The next day he'd front up to work, no problem. Getting sloshed on a Sunday night was considered making the most of the weekend.

On another occasion when a mate threw up in the designated driver's mum's car, the chucker's dad helped them clean the car in the dark in his driveway, knowing the other mother would go ballistic if she found out her new car had been used as a barf bucket.

Nowadays, if Booners drinks two heavy beers he checks himself. He's not as young as he used to be and he has responsibilities that come with family, mortgage and a heavyweight 50 hours-plus a week job.

He still loves his rum but he admits with some regret that a bottle can last him a year rather than a night. He reckons it isn't maturity or experience that made him slow down and drink in moderation these days. It's his metabolism. If he could drink a skinful and still deal with work and family from 6am, he jokes he would. But nowdays it takes him at least a day to recover from a big night on the booze. It just isn't worth it.

Teenagers will work this out for themselves and no amount of lecturing or taxing or legislating will stop them from getting rat-arsed, hammered, pissed, trashed, sloshed, loaded, blind, fried, maggoted, mute ... Just like their parents did.

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2008, 01:48 PM
Isn't the GST meant to be 10% across the board anyway? Why have these extra taxes at all?
A very good question actually.

Southpaw Jim
07-05-2008, 03:47 PM
Because the theory of a broad based consumption tax does not fit perfectly into our federal framework. I'm sure if, in a perfect world, the 2 tiers of government were perfectly cooperative in terms of revenue sharing, then you could abolish all other taxes... but you'd be hit with a higher GST. In addition, we don't live in a perfect world, and both state and federal governments won't cooperate perfectly because they have other political motivations, regardless of being Lib/Lab.

The reason stamp duty still exists is the same reason Costello didn't abolish income or company tax: governments require more revenue than a 10% GST provides in order to fund all the services that the populace demands of them. Jono would say cut services, but this does not accord with the majority view.

Southpaw Jim
07-05-2008, 03:55 PM
If you're really concerned about health costs on the community, you could be more consistent and advocate prohibition. Otherwise the government has a strong financial incentive to keep these going. And about costs on the community, that is a problem with socialism, not liberty. I.e. get rid of socialized medicine so we don't have to pay when others deliberately harm their own bodies.

Otherwise where does it end? The things Andrew Bolt cites are logical continuations of the nanny state attitude.
It's not nanny state-ism, IMO, if you're not told what to do. No-one makes you drink or smoke. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy those goods!

Anyway Jono, I would've thought as a free-market man, you wouldn't support prohibition, as it's a market distortion! Much better to allow the market to operate and tax the externality, eh? :P

And after all, the taxes do have people pay for their self-harm, in direct proportion to their consumption... :P

Basil
07-05-2008, 06:18 PM
Case #1
Wollongong council corruption (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23256359-2,00.html)

Case #2
James Reyne says Garrett has "sold Melbourne out" over green dredging issue (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/05/1202090421845.html). Objection Upheld.

Case #3
Not sure if building a monument to self (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23303906-421,00.html) :rolleyes: counts. No doubt what the reaction would have been if another party did same while in government? :doh: [/rhetorical]

Case #4
The Carers' payment Ruddflip (http://au.news.yahoo.com/080307/2/162wx.html). The belt-tightening, not belt-tightening, helping the less well-off, not helping the less well-off bungled leadership while overseas thingo which just ended up being Howard government policy.

Case #5
Defence Backflip (http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news/article.php?cat=intNews&categoryid=5&articleid=1038). Laba belted the Libs in the election campaign over this purchase and then, you'd never believe ... Laba adopted the Libs' policy. FFS - the people are morons of Latham proportions. I did warn you. Incompetent boobs. Big on talk. Suck the low-brows (and of course the newly-hatched) right in. You'll be murdered in your beds. Just wait until they start playing with the money :wall:

Case #6
Labor's tax cuts (http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23447218-462,00.html) This is Howard government policy. $100 HCDs to the first person to find a quote where Labor made pre-election mileage out of belittling this policy. $50 HCDs to anyone who find a Lefty on this board saying it wasn't the answer.

Case #7
The Botched National Savings Scheme.
The savings plan
a) is too complicated
b) can favour rich savers
c) doesn't work
pork barreling (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080207-Political-considerations-take-the-edge-off-Rudds-savings-plan.html)
useless (http://www.crikey.com.au/Election-2007/20071105-Rudds-first-home-owner-saver-account.html)
unfair (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/17/1208025380919.html)

Case #8
Asylum Seekers. We'll save ya! *cough*
The great lie that Labor perpetrates about having a bigger heart - example #396 (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23659947-953,00.html)

Spiny Norman
07-05-2008, 06:28 PM
Not to mention the VIC government's latest budget ... ratcheting up state government debt, which will quadruple over the next 4 years ... whilst simultaneously overrunning costs on any number of major projects (e.g. the Myki debacle which, at last count, was going to cost something like $1B) ... and all whilst we're in a period of massive economic growth. Do these morons have any clue how much pain we had to endure during the post-Kirner years in order to pay off the debts they left us then? Enough to make me want to emigrate.

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2008, 07:30 PM
It's not nanny state-ism, IMO, if you're not told what to do. No-one makes you drink or smoke. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy those goods!
Come off it. It's nanny stating if you are in effect fining people to commit what you decree are sins. There is no stopping this process.

What if a government fined or taxed people for wearing blue hats? By Southpaw's typically leftist "reasoning" (sensu latissimo), "If you don't want to pay the tax, don't wear blue hats!"


Anyway Jono, I would've thought as a free-market man, you wouldn't support prohibition, as it's a market distortion! Much better to allow the market to operate and tax the externality, eh? :P
No I don't support prohibition. That would be the logical conclusion to your obsession with protecting people from themselves. The allow-and-tax is the most hypocritical of all positions. Walter Williams has a point in Three cheers for smugglers (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams080200.asp).


And after all, the taxes do have people pay for their self-harm, in direct proportion to their consumption... :P
That's highly debatable, since you can't prove such a direct correlation between consumption and harm. Chairman KRudd's latest tax seems nothing more than a revenue raiser.


The reason stamp duty still exists is the same reason Costello didn't abolish income or company tax: governments require more revenue than a 10% GST provides in order to fund all the services that the populace demands of them.
More like a version of Murphy's Law: government services can expand to spend all the money that government takes.


Jono would say cut services,
Of course. These so-called services are a form of slavery, given that slavery means living off the sweat of another's brow. Workers are forced to support those who will not work, or kids who have kids.


but this does not accord with the majority view.
An example of why democracy can be the tyranny of the majority (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams022807.php3). The majority in Germany thought it was OK to steal Jews' property and kill the owners. Here the majority is not quite as tyrannical, but it still OKs stealing property from some Australians to give to others. Walter Williams points out (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams112900.asp)that economic freedom, including rule of law and property rights, has historically been more important than democracy in ensuring prosperity.

Southpaw Jim
07-05-2008, 09:46 PM
Come off it. It's nanny stating if you are in effect fining people to commit what you decree are sins.
No, it's user-pays, based on the demonstrable negative externality. How do you propose negative externalities be treated? (assuming for the nonce that socialised medicine is an immutable Australian fact)


What if a government fined or taxed people for wearing blue hats? By Southpaw's typically leftist "reasoning" (sensu latissimo), "If you don't want to pay the tax, don't wear blue hats!"
What are the externalities associated with wearing blue hats?? :P


No I don't support prohibition.
And you don't support taxing the externalities. Interesting position..


That's highly debatable, since you can't prove such a direct correlation between consumption and harm.
Treat it as a null hypothesis..


An example of why democracy can be the tyranny of the majority (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams022807.php3). The majority in Germany thought it was OK to steal Jews' property and kill the owners.
Are you arguing against majority rule? What do you propose? Autocracy? Oligarchy? Nazism isn't an argument against democratic process, it's an argument against the granting of absolute power to government. But then, you knew that..

Igor_Goldenberg
08-05-2008, 09:49 AM
Are you arguing against majority rule? What do you propose? Autocracy? Oligarchy? Nazism isn't an argument against democratic process, it's an argument against the granting of absolute power to government. But then, you knew that..
In mathematical terms, majority rule is not sufficient. I am not even sure it is necessary (even though desirable to some degree). The role of the government might be more important then how it is formed (even though those two are related).

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2008, 12:24 PM
What are the externalities associated with wearing blue hats?? :P
None that I can think of. But that never stopped lefties from taxing things that harmed no one, e.g. "luxuries". That's because lefties regard businesses as prey rather than assets, unless they can get them as collaborators.


And you don't support taxing the externalities. Interesting position..
I support getting rid of socialized medicine instead.


Treat it as a null hypothesis..
Punitive taxation is basically a fallacy of division: something is harmful in excess, so it is slightly harmful in moderation. In fact, red wine is known to be beneficial in moderation.


Are you arguing against majority rule?
Against pure majority rule, yes. Just like the American Founders.


What do you propose?
I already told you: the rule of law, and protection of life and property rights. This is far more important than majority rule in producing prosperity. If property rights are guarded, then the majority can't confiscate property from the minority. What often happens in practice is even worse, because minority lobby groups can have more influence with politicians because they stand to gain concentrated and obvious benefits, while the greater costs to the majority are diffused and hidden (http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail_print.php?PubID=296).

In Iraq, pure majority rule is especially undesirable because the Shiites could easily vote to deny basic rights to the Sunnis. Walter Williams proposes instead something like the Swiss cantonal system (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4588):


The ideal political model for Iraq is Switzerland's cantonal system. Historically, Switzerland, unlike most European countries, was made up of several different major ethnic groups — Germans, French, Italians and Rhaeto-Romansch. Over the centuries, conflicts have arisen between these groups, who differ in language, religion (Catholic and Protestant) and culture. The resolution to the conflict was to allow the warring groups to govern themselves.

Switzerland has 26 cantons. The cantons are divided into about 3,000 communes. Switzerland's federal government controls only those interests common to all cantons — national defense, foreign policy, railways and the like. All other matters are controlled by the individual cantons and communes. The Swiss cantonal system enables people of different ethnicity, language, culture and religion to live at peace with one another.

As such, Switzerland's political system is well suited to an ethnically and religiously divided country such as Iraq.

By the way, for President Bush and others who insist on calling our country a democracy, should we change our pledge of allegiance to say "to the democracy, for which it stands," and should we rename "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" to "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?


Autocracy? Oligarchy? Nazism isn't an argument against democratic process, it's an argument against the granting of absolute power to government. But then, you knew that.
Of course. But absolute power is dangerous to anyone, including a demagogue popular with a majority. That's why the American founders included checks and balances, checking power with rival power. There are many deliberately undemocratic features in American politics, such as the Electoral College, Senatorial review and Presidential veto power.

Kevin Bonham
08-05-2008, 12:40 PM
The majority in Germany thought it was OK to steal Jews' property and kill the owners.

Did they, or were they intimidated into going along with it? The Nazis never actually won a majority.

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2008, 12:44 PM
Did they, or were they intimidated into going along with it? The Nazis never actually won a majority.
Neither did Klinton.

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2008, 12:47 PM
Alcopop thefts soar since tax jump (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/alcopop-thefts-soar-since-tax-jump/2008/05/07/1210131068841.html)
SMH 8 May 2008.


LESS than two weeks after the Government ramped up the tax to curb binge-drinking, "alcopops" are walking off the shelves - illegally.

Some bottle shop owners in Sydney's south-west are reporting a surge in theft, not only of the so-called "ready-to-drink" mixes, which are small and easy to conceal, but also the 700-millilitre bottles of spirits that many young people appear to be switching to as an alternative.

Wow, the tax to inhibit a non-existent problem merely drove people to theft and switching to stronger stuff! That's the problem with lefties like Southpaw who justify taxing negative externalities: just about any confiscatory tax can be justified, and it rarely reduces the problems it's ostensibly designed to solve.

pax
08-05-2008, 01:29 PM
I wonder if "Wall To Wall Labor" now also describes the federal Opposition? Between Brendan "what about the babies" Nelson, and Malcolm "spend more money" Turnbull, the Liberal party seems to be intent on attacking Labor from the left.

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2008, 01:51 PM
I wonder if "Wall To Wall Labor" now also describes the federal Opposition? Between Brendan "what about the babies" Nelson, and Malcolm "spend more money" Turnbull, the Liberal party seems to be intent on attacking Labor from the left.
I agree with you. I am not impressed with Nelson and Turnbull trying to be "Labor-Lite"—and neither are most Australians.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-05-2008, 03:48 PM
I agree with you. I am not impressed with Nelson and Turnbull trying to be "Labor-Lite"—and neither are most Australians.
They are making me more content with Rudd's rule:D

Igor_Goldenberg
08-05-2008, 03:55 PM
Alcopop thefts soar since tax jump (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/alcopop-thefts-soar-since-tax-jump/2008/05/07/1210131068841.html)
SMH 8 May 2008.


LESS than two weeks after the Government ramped up the tax to curb binge-drinking, "alcopops" are walking off the shelves - illegally.

Some bottle shop owners in Sydney's south-west are reporting a surge in theft, not only of the so-called "ready-to-drink" mixes, which are small and easy to conceal, but also the 700-millilitre bottles of spirits that many young people appear to be switching to as an alternative.

Wow, the tax to inhibit a non-existent problem merely drove people to theft and switching to stronger stuff! That's the problem with lefties like Southpaw who justify taxing negative externalities: just about any confiscatory tax can be justified, and it rarely reduces the problems it's ostensibly designed to solve.

That illustrates very important point. Many government policies to be are analysed on the premises that people's behavior will not change. About a decade ago I read a proposal to remove all the taxes and replace them with one small tax (like 1%) on all bank transaction. The author claimed it would rise as much revenue as existing taxes. It was silly, of course, as people would change their banking habits to minimize number of transactions and reduce tax.

Same here. Any tax changes our economical behavior as we try to minimize damage from the tax increase (or maximize benefit form the tax cut).

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2008, 04:14 PM
That illustrates very important point. Many government policies to be are analysed on the premises that people's behavior will not change. About a decade ago I read a proposal to remove all the taxes and replace them with one small tax (like 1%) on all bank transaction. The author claimed it would rise as much revenue as existing taxes. It was silly, of course, as people would change their banking habits to minimize number of transactions and reduce tax.
Yes, a static rather than a dynamic analysis of taxation. That's the fallacy of leftists talking about "raising tax revenue". They merely raise tax rates, which may not raise tax revenue if they drive people away from activities that would be taxed punitively (including overtime, more responsible and higher paying jobs, employing more people and being fined with payroll tax).

Conversely, there is good reason to believe that the LDP's 30/30 tax policy (http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm70.pdf)would reduce rates but raise revenue as people were no longer punished for coming off welfare into work, and could devote more time to productive activities instead of trying to work out the elephantine tax code, while incentives to divert into the black economy would be reduced.

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2008, 11:34 PM
Jono and Gunner, why do you sometimes spell "Labor" as "Laba"?

pax
14-05-2008, 12:34 AM
Conversely, there is good reason to believe that the LDP's 30/30 tax policy (http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm70.pdf)would reduce rates but raise revenue
I haven't seen any analysis that goes beyond guesswork to say that revenue would be higher..

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2008, 01:00 AM
I haven't seen any analysis that goes beyond guesswork to say that revenue would be higher..
The paper gives the reasons. Less money wasted in compliance, less churning (where someone both receives a benefit and pays tax on it), greater incentive for unemployed to work because they won't get benefits clawed back savagely and end up hardly better off, reducing the incentive for partaking in the black economy, saving $$$ by sharply reducing the tax and welfare bureaucracies, the Laffer Curve ...

pax
14-05-2008, 01:40 AM
The paper gives the reasons. Less money wasted in compliance, less churning (where someone both receives a benefit and pays tax on it), greater incentive for unemployed to work because they won't get benefits clawed back savagely and end up hardly better off, reducing the incentive for partaking in the black economy, saving $$$ by sharply reducing the tax and welfare bureaucracies, the Laffer Curve ...

I do not dispute that there are certainly some savings. However there is no analysis showing in any concrete way that these are likely to come even remotely close to covering all the lost revenue.

Basil
14-05-2008, 05:50 AM
Jono and Gunner, why do you sometimes spell "Labor" as "Laba"?
As far as I know it's an original Howardism (me, not Johnny the poli). I certainly haven't seen it anywhere else.

My coining has its origins in my deep-seated loathing for the hardcore, easily identifiable factions (profiles) that attach themselves like glue to the Labor cause.

See also 'Werka' and 'Battla'.

See also the predictability of academics and artisans (including writers) in their political predilections (coupled with their unworldly application of their principles).

The words 'Werka' and 'Laba' have particular sounds (self labeling, not mine; viz union rep on tele for instance) when pronounced (with stress on the 'final 'a') that remind me of my earliest political experiences (late childhood): mealy-mouthed, high ideology, limited appreciation of fiscal consequences, mantra jamming, mass action (marches, strikes), tacit loathing of the profit motive (unless it's their own :wall:), hopeless model building and it goes on ...)

It's a derogatory term.

Southpaw Jim
14-05-2008, 08:49 AM
Hmm, some 12 hours after the first "Laba" Budget and still no bemoaning the end of the world from the usual suspects :hmm:

What is going on? Gunner, are you hungover or something? :P

After all, there's plenty to dislike:


tax cuts as promised
means testing of welfare, including baby bonus
reduction in public sector spending growth from ~4% to 1.1%, the lowest since the mid 90s
election commitments funded from spending cuts
healthy Budget surpluses, to be put into Costello's favourite accounting vehicle, "future" funds
The silence is deafening :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2008, 09:03 AM
Hmm, some 12 hours after the first "Laba" Budget and still no bemoaning the end of the world from the usual suspects :hmm:

What is going on? Gunner, are you hungover or something? :P
After all, there's plenty to dislike:
How about inflation and interest rates higher than they had been under Howard/Costello, a crazy gabfest that told Rudd what he wanted to hear, a moronic tax on alcopops that has merely driven people to harder spirits, reducing work-for-dole, a likelihood of huge sacrifices required to appease the green gods.

Cuts in bureaucratic spending is good if it's real and not some accounting trick. Keeping the Howard/Costello tax cuts is good. Means testing baby bonus is a crock; the LDP's tax free threshold per child is a better idea. And under Laba, they want to subsidise one type of childcare (daycare centres) over others (mother, relatives).

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2008, 09:08 AM
I do not dispute that there are certainly some savings. However there is no analysis showing in any concrete way that these are likely to come even remotely close to covering all the lost revenue.
Translation:

John Humphreys: [detailed analysis (http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm70.pdf)on the many ways the 30/30 reform would result in huge increases in economic productivity, reductions in unemployment, and easily pay for itself]

Pax, Joker, Boris, and other high-tax–loving lefties with fingers in ear: "Lalalalala, I can't hear you! Where's the evidence?

Desmond
14-05-2008, 10:35 AM
John Humphreys: [detailed analysis (http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm70.pdf)on the many ways the 30/30 reform would result in huge increases in economic productivity, reductions in unemployment, and easily pay for itself]Does he explain why 30/30 is the sweet spot, as opposed to, say, 31/29 or 29/31? Or should we just choose a system that is more "catchy"?

Basil
14-05-2008, 01:43 PM
Hmm, some 12 hours after the first "Laba" Budget and still no bemoaning the end of the world from the usual suspects :hmm:
It's a nothing budget. Exactly what the promise-everything-but no-real-idea-when-push-comes-to-shove-P-Platers were always going to do.

This budget does not signal the beginning of the Laba end. That was always going to happen from the moment they were elected. This budget is just another step along the process.

I do have issues with the budget, but none I care to share here.

pax
14-05-2008, 02:33 PM
Translation:

John Humphreys: [detailed analysis (http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm70.pdf)on the many ways the 30/30 reform would result in huge increases in economic productivity, reductions in unemployment, and easily pay for itself]
If you think that is a detailed analysis, you have rocks in your head. Humphrey presents a three line hand wavy justification, and concludes "a 60 billion productivity gain is a reasonable estimate". Do you really want to bet 25 billion dollars that his three line justifications will hold up?

30/30 is worth further investigation. But it needs a proper detailed analysis (including proper budget forecasts), not 30 pages (inc 7 pages of foreword) of simplistic explanations.

pax
14-05-2008, 02:33 PM
Does he explain why 30/30 is the sweet spot, as opposed to, say, 31/29 or 29/31? Or should we just choose a system that is more "catchy"?
Plucked out of thin air is the best way to describe it.

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2008, 03:49 PM
Does he explain why 30/30 is the sweet spot, as opposed to, say, 31/29 or 29/31? Or should we just choose a system that is more "catchy"?

More catchy. So where is the explanation for the current tax brackets, hypocrite? Then explain what's so great about a system that pays welfare then taxes it, and traps people in poverty because huge effective marginal tax rates make it financially unattractive for the unemployed to work, or requires so many hours of compliance to navigate the tax maze, or ...

Desmond
14-05-2008, 04:16 PM
More catchy. So where is the explanation for the current tax brackets, I'm not saying that they should not be changed, but if they are changed then the best system should be used, not just the first one someone thinks of.


hypocrite?You really are a Vulgarian, aren't you.


Then explain what's so great about a system that pays welfare then taxes it, and traps people in poverty because huge effective marginal tax rates make it financially unattractive for the unemployed to work, or requires so many hours of compliance to navigate the tax maze, or ...I never said it was great.

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2008, 04:29 PM
Laba has just introduced a windfall profits tax on our local oil producers. Way to go! That's the way to encourage new investment in the expensive oil surveying and drilling equipment: confiscate much of their gains. Heilary Klinton is also keen on confiscating oil profits. Yet these evil oil companies produce this amazing liquid for a price cheaper than milk, coca cola or Evian water.

Thomas Sowell, a long-term strong critic of McCain, note, writes (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/05/13/too_complex):


What about those "obscene" oil company profits we hear so much about?

An economist might ask, "Obscene compared to what?" Compared to the investments made? Compared to the new investments required to find, extract and process additional oil supplies?

Asking questions like these are among the many reasons why economists have never been very popular. They frustrate people's desires for emotionally satisfying explanations.

If corporate "greed" is the explanation for high gasoline prices, why are the government's taxes not an even bigger sign of "greed" on the part of politicians — since taxes add more to the price of gasoline than oil company profits do?

Whatever the merits or demerits of Senator John McCain's proposal to temporarily suspend the federal taxes on gasoline, it would certainly lower the price more than confiscating all the oil companies' profits.

But it would not be as emotionally satisfying.

Senator Barack Obama clearly understands people's emotional needs and how to meet them. He wants to raise taxes on oil companies.

How that will get us more oil or lower the price of gasoline is a problem that can be left for economists to puzzle over. A politician's problem is how to get more votes — and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to be a hero who will save us from the villains.

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2008, 04:34 PM
I'm not saying that they should not be changed, but if they are changed then the best system should be used, not just the first one someone thinks of.
Agreed, but this proposal is not the first thought of. Milton Friedman first advocated such a negative taxation system to replace the current tax/welfare system. John Humphreys has analysed it in more detail, applying it to Australia.


You really are a Vulgarian, aren't you.
You were trying to be a smartie about the 30/30 figures. I was pointing out that you never complained about the arbitrary figures for the current brackets, or the obscene bracket creep as inflation shoves people into higher brackets.


I never said it was great.
Not only that, but it looks like crap compared to the Friedman/Humphreys/LDP proposal. If anyone were to design our current monstrosity fromn scratch and propose it as a national taxation system, he would be ridiculed.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-05-2008, 05:20 PM
Can anyone link to the proposed tax rates for 2008-2009, as I did not find them in any budget reports.

Southpaw Jim
14-05-2008, 10:10 PM
I believe you're looking for this?

http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/image/bp1_bst5-40.gif

From Appendix E to Budget Paper No.1! (http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst5-09.htm)

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2008, 10:22 PM
As far as I know it's an original Howardism (me, not Johnny the poli). I certainly haven't seen it anywhere else.

It seems to be very rare. A google search for "Laba" + "Kevin Rudd" retrieved only 28 results with this site prominent among them. (By the way if you don't put quotes around "Laba" Google thinks you're being silly and goes looking for Jessica Alba instead.)

Thanks for the explanation.

Garvinator
14-05-2008, 10:51 PM
It seems to be very rare. A google search for "Laba" + "Kevin Rudd" retrieved only 28 results with this site prominent among them. (By the way if you don't put quotes around "Laba" Google thinks you're being silly and goes looking for Jessica Alba instead.)

Thanks for the explanation.
Of course KB, looking for the second option has to be much better than the first ;) :whistle:

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2008, 09:34 AM
I believe you're looking for this?

http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/image/bp1_bst5-40.gif

From Appendix E to Budget Paper No.1! (http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst5-09.htm)

Thanks.
Low income tax offset means that effective tax rates for 2008-2009 are:

0-14000 Nil
14001-30000 15%
30001-34000 19%
34001-60000 34%
60001-80000 30%
80001-180000 40%
180000+ 45%


Lifting tax free threshold to 14000 is good (even though should be higher IMHO).
The question is:
Why bother with LITO instead of incorporating it into tax rates?

Desmond
15-05-2008, 11:03 AM
Would anyone kindly give me the dummy's guide to how you get the $14,000 figure for tax free threshold.

pax
15-05-2008, 12:21 PM
Lifting tax free threshold to 14000 is good (even though should be higher IMHO).
Agree.


The question is:
Why bother with LITO instead of incorporating it into tax rates?

Good question. I think the answer is that in order to get an equivalent tax take, the marginal tax rate number has to be higher in the $30k band (you probably also need more tax bands, which adds complexity). Higher numbers scare people, even when nobody is actually paying any more tax!

pax
15-05-2008, 12:25 PM
Would anyone kindly give me the dummy's guide to how you get the $14,000 figure for tax free threshold.
Suppose you earn $14k exactly. Then you pay 15% tax on the $8k earned above $6k - exactly $1200.

The LITO is a maximum of $1200, and applies at full rate to anyone earning less than $30k, so the person on $14k pays exactly zero tax.

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2008, 12:35 PM
Lifting tax free threshold to 14000 is good (even though should be higher IMHO).
The question is:
Why bother with LITO instead of incorporating it into tax rates?
I tend to agree, and support the LDP plan of TFTs and negative taxation that would do the job even better.

However, one problem noted with TFTs is that an increasing number of people will pay no tax, so have no incentive to vote against tax or spending increases and for tax cuts. Walter Williams wrote in Congressional and leftist lies (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams111407.php3)(14 Nov 2007):


What about any argument suggesting that the burden of taxes have been shifted to the poor? The bottom 50 percent, earning $30,000 or less, paid 3 percent of total federal income taxes. In 1999, they paid 4 percent. Congressmen know all of this, but they attempt to hoodwink the average American who doesn’t.

The fact that there are so many American earners who have little or no financial stake in our country poses a serious political problem.

The Tax Foundation estimates that 41 percent of whites, 56 percent of blacks, 59 percent of American Indian and Aleut Eskimo and 40 percent Asian and Pacific Islanders had no 2004 federal income tax liability.

The study concluded, “When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, there are roughly 122 million Americans — 44 percent of the U.S. population — who are outside of the federal income tax system.”

These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. In other words, if you have little or no financial stake in America, what do you care about the cost of massive federal spending programs?

Similarly, what do you care about tax cuts if you’re paying little or no taxes? In fact, you might be openly hostile toward tax cuts out of fear that they might lead to reductions in handout programs from which you benefit.

Survey polls have confirmed this. According to The Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350 billion tax cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes.

The LDP plan doesn't have this drawback, since there is always an effective marginal tax rate of 30%.

Southpaw Jim
15-05-2008, 12:35 PM
I was thinking that the LITO might be an historical oddity, but I'm not so sure now: I can't find any kind of policy information on a quick scan of the ATO site, but I suspect it may actually have something to do with residency. Only residents can claim the LITO - hence, if you're an OS traveller who works in Australia for a short time, you'll probably earn under $30,000 but you won't be entitled to the LITO - which is specifically intended for people in "low income" circumstances (cf a backpacking tourist).

Desmond
15-05-2008, 12:50 PM
You were trying to be a smartie about the 30/30 figures. I would just like to see some comparitive analysis on some different options. Didn't One Nation have some variant of this with a 20% flat rate too?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2008, 01:25 PM
I tend to agree, and support the LDP plan of TFTs and negative taxation that would do the job even better.


What is TFT?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2008, 01:26 PM
I was thinking that the LITO might be an historical oddity, but I'm not so sure now: I can't find any kind of policy information on a quick scan of the ATO site, but I suspect it may actually have something to do with residency. Only residents can claim the LITO - hence, if you're an OS traveller who works in Australia for a short time, you'll probably earn under $30,000 but you won't be entitled to the LITO - which is specifically intended for people in "low income" circumstances (cf a backpacking tourist).

Might be wrong, but as far as I remember there are completely different tax rates for the low income earners if they are not residents.

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2008, 02:45 PM
What is TFT?
Tax-free threshold.

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2008, 02:46 PM
I would just like to see some comparitive analysis on some different options. Didn't One Nation have some variant of this with a 20% flat rate too?
I wouldn't call it a variant, since that didn't include the Friedmanite negative taxation. It would still be a big improvement on today's convoluted tax system.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2008, 02:54 PM
I would just like to see some comparitive analysis on some different options. Didn't One Nation have some variant of this with a 20% flat rate too?
As far as I remember they suggested something like transaction tax, which did not make any sense at all.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2008, 03:09 PM
I wouldn't call it a variant, since that didn't include the Friedmanite negative taxation. It would still be a big improvement on today's convoluted tax system.

Proper tax reform can start with taking all welfare benefits and tax rate in one package that includes base benefit with benefit withdrawal rates combined with tax rates. They should yield same tax and Centrelink payment as now.

The major benefit is to make EMTR clear. Some bands will show tax rate well in excess of 45%.

Second step should introduce tax rates for families and singles. Welfare benefits depend on marital status and number of children. Tax rates generally do not, but if family assistance is taken into account, the rates are also different.

Straightening tax rates after that will be a no-brainer.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2008, 03:30 PM
Let's look at effective tax rates for single person, no children. Pharmaceutical allowance and rent assistance are ignored for simplicity.

Basis payment 11364.6 per annum
Tax rates:

0-1612 Nil
1613-6500 50%
6501-14000 60%
14001-21367 75%
21368-30000 15%
30001-34000 19%
34001-60000 34%
60001-80000 30%
80001-180000 40%
180000+ 45%

It does not take into account Medicare levy (which could introduce few more bands).

I don't think 75% tax rate is a great incentive to work. If you take into account Medicare and other benefits it goes closer to 80%.
For family with single earner the tax rate is even higher. I couldn't bother analysing as it takes too much time.

pax
15-05-2008, 04:05 PM
I don't think 75% tax rate is a great incentive to work. If you take into account Medicare and other benefits it goes closer to 80%.
That is quite bad.

Let me ask two questions:
A)How much should a single unemployed person with no other income receive?
B)What is the smallest income at which a person should not receive any Government benefits?

If you divide A by B, that gives you the minimum EMTR possible under those constraints. The only ways of reducing the EMTR from this number is by reducing A, or by increasing B.

The Newstart allowance starts at $11364 and cuts out at an income of $21367 (in fact, the number is effectively lower than this due to the 15% tax band offsetting Newstart income). This gives a minimum theoretical EMTR of 53% - still quite high, but much lower than 75%.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2008, 05:35 PM
That is quite bad.

Let me ask two questions:
A)How much should a single unemployed person with no other income receive?
B)What is the smallest income at which a person should not receive any Government benefits?

If you divide A by B, that gives you the minimum EMTR possible under those constraints. The only ways of reducing the EMTR from this number is by reducing A, or by increasing B.

The Newstart allowance starts at $11364 and cuts out at an income of $21367 (in fact, the number is effectively lower than this due to the 15% tax band offsetting Newstart income). This gives a minimum theoretical EMTR of 53% - still quite high, but much lower than 75%.

I do not favour reducing A (unemployment benefit). Increasing B(smallest income at which a person should not receive any Government benefits) is better.

If no tax levied at all until 21367 and the whole benefit is withdrawn, the tax rate between 1612 and 21637 would be 57.5%. With the tax currently applied it's 63%.
If no tax levied at all until 30000 and the whole benefit is withdrawn, the tax rate between 1612 and 21637 would be 40%. With the tax currently applied it's 48.5%.
The tax currently paid between 1612 and 60000 is 40%
Between 1612 and 80000 it's 37.5
Between 1612 and 180000 it's 39%

If 1612 is increased to 2726 and the tax applied at 38%, 80000 will pay the same tax, everyone on a lower figure will pay less.
Tax rate of 38% means that benefit is withdrawn completely at 32631 pa.

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2008, 06:16 PM
Let me ask two questions:
A)How much should a single unemployed person with no other income receive?
B)What is the smallest income at which a person should not receive any Government benefits?
The LDP's answer is:


Wage | -ve Tax | Income
$0 | $9,000 | $9,000
$5,000 | $7,500 | $12,500
$10,000 | $6,000 | $16,000
$15,000 | $4,500 | $19,500
$20,000 | $3,000 | $23,000
$25,000 | $1,500 | $26,500
$30,000 | $0 | $30,000

For the vast majority of people, this will be an improvement on the current bloated and loop-hole loaded system:



Income | Current | 30/30 |Current |30/30 |Current | 30/30 | Change
Welfare | Welfare | Tax |Tax | Total | Total |
No income |$10,147 | $9,000 | $0 | $0 | $10,147 | $9000 | -11%
Half minimum | $3512 | $5504 | $962 | $0 | $14,209 | $17,162 | +21%
($11,658)
Minimum | $0 | $2005 | $3166 | $0 | $20,150 | $26,482 | +31%
($23,316)
Average | $0 | $0 |$10,869 | $5698 | $38,124 | $43,295 | +14%
($48,993)
2x Average | $0 | $0 |$32,859 |$20,396| $65,127 | $77,590 | +19%
($97,986)

pax
15-05-2008, 06:27 PM
The LDP's answer is:
People on welfare get $2000 less, and everybody else gets more. People in the highest tax brackets get a lot more.

However, it is possible to flatten the EMTR for low income earners along the lines of Igor's proposal without also handing huge tax cuts to people earning $150k and above.

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2008, 06:44 PM
People on welfare get $2000 less, and everybody else gets more.
Yes, and since everyone else means those who work, including those on half-time at minimum wage, there is an excellent financial incentive to do so. This is much better than the current crass system of clawing back benefits so savagely that beneficiaries are hardly any better off if they take any low-paying job that could give them useful work experience.


People in the highest tax brackets get a lot more.
No, they get to keep a percentage of their earnings comparable to what low-income earners keep.

The ones who would benefit most from the 30/30 scheme are the ½-time and full-time minimum wage earners! And that is the most important thing for reducing unemployment. Socking the "rich" might make good demagogery, but does nothing to help the poor.

Note to Boris: the LDP brackets are pretty much optimised to give the greatest percentage improvement to those on the current minimum wage.


However, it is possible to flatten the EMTR for low income earners along the lines of Igor's proposal without also handing huge tax cuts to people earning $150k and above.
There's the lefty attitude again. The government really owns our money, and we plebs should be grateful for the crumbs they let us keep. The reality is, tax cuts means that the government is not confiscating as much of our earnings.

pax
15-05-2008, 07:25 PM
There's the lefty attitude again. The government really owns our money, and we plebs should be grateful for the crumbs they let us keep. The reality is, tax cuts means that the government is not confiscating as much of our earnings.

There's that righty attitude again. Humungous tax cuts for the top earners are all for the good of the minimum wage earner!

The fact is that all of the benefits of the 30/30 system for low to middle income earners could be had without adding on a humungous tax cut to the wealthiest group

Igor_Goldenberg
15-05-2008, 08:41 PM
There's that righty attitude again. Humungous tax cuts for the top earners are all for the good of the minimum wage earner!

The fact is that all of the benefits of the 30/30 system for low to middle income earners could be had without adding on a humungous tax cut to the wealthiest group

LDP 30/30 proposal was released when welfare was around 9K. The Centrelink payment. The threshold is easy to adjust for inflation.
30/30 combines flattening tax scale - that benefits low income earners with across the board reduction.

"Humongous tax cuts for the top earners" is a typical envy attitude. Top earners pay more tax whatever tax rate you use. Are you saying they deserve the fruits of their labour less then low income earners?

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2008, 12:08 AM
There's that righty attitude again. Humungous tax cuts for the top earners are all for the good of the minimum wage earner!
Spoken like a true envy-mongering lefty (but I repeat myself). Rather, since low income earners can keep over 70% of their earnings, why should high income earners have almost half their earnings confiscated?


The fact is that all of the benefits of the 30/30 system for low to middle income earners could be had without adding on a humungous tax cut to the wealthiest group
Once again, lefties care more about equalizing poverty than increasing wealth, even though the LDP proposal proportionately has the highest benefits for minimum wage earners. And this in turn means that it's an encouragement for the unemployed to take up such jobs and gain valuable work experience. But lefties don't like such ideas, since they need a permanent victim class for votes.

pax
16-05-2008, 01:08 AM
"Humongous tax cuts for the top earners" is a typical envy attitude. Top earners pay more tax whatever tax rate you use. Are you saying they deserve the fruits of their labour less then low income earners?
Not at all. But they are certainly more *able* to pay tax than low income earners. Humungous tax cuts for rich people will cut government revenue drastically. Jono's fantasy that cutting taxes will result in increased revenues is simply not based in reality.

But hang on Igor - your own proposal did not change the rates for the top brackets. Do you prefer the LDP plan to your own?

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2008, 01:13 AM
Not at all. But they are certainly more *able* to pay tax than low income earners.
So? It doesn't mean that governments should confiscate more of their wealth because the Anointed like Pax think they can afford this confiscation.


Humungous tax cuts for rich people will cut government revenue drastically.
Even if you were right, money is better kept in the pockets of those who earned it, than sucked into the black hole of government waste.


Jono's fantasy that cutting taxes will result in increased revenues is simply not based in reality.
Or Laffer's "fantasy", and the reality with the tax cuts of Coolidge, JFK and Reagan that raised revenues, and the increased prosperity in NZ after Roger Douglas drasticallyreduced tax rates.

pax
16-05-2008, 01:14 AM
Spoken like a true envy-mongering lefty (but I repeat myself). Rather, since low income earners can keep over 70% of what they earn, why high income earners have almost half their earnings confiscated?
Wanna try again with that sentence?


Once again, lefties care more about equalizing poverty than increasing wealth,
Spake the lefty of Jono's imagination.


even though the LDP proposal proportionately has the highest benefits for minimum wage earners. And this in turn means that it's an encouragement for the unemployed to take up such jobs and gain valuable work experience. But lefties don't like such ideas, since they need a permanent victim class for votes.
I do like the idea, actually. But fixing the EMTRs at the low end can be done (in precisely the 30/30 way if you like) without accompanying them with humungous tax cuts for rich people which will very likely cripple the government (obviously you would just love to see that).

pax
16-05-2008, 01:15 AM
Or Laffer's "fantasy"
Laffer doesn't know where the optimum tax-to-revenue point is on the curve... Do you?

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2008, 01:36 AM
Laffer doesn't know where the optimum tax-to-revenue point is on the curve... Do you?
Hard to call it a fantasy when tax rate cuts have historically raised revenues.

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2008, 01:43 AM
Wanna try again with that sentence?
Why SHOULD ...


Spake the lefty of Jono's imagination.
Unfortunately not my imagination. E.g. our city council banned highly efficient drip watering systems because it would discriminate against those who can't afford them.


I do like the idea, actually.
That's something anyway.


But fixing the EMTRs at the low end can be done (in precisely the 30/30 way if you like) without accompanying them with humungous tax cuts for rich people
Pax evidently can't bear to let high income earners keep much more than half of what they earn. Way to go in encouraging entrepreneurship and productive work! Pax' tax plan can be summarized:

Confiscate from the productive and give it to the unproductive.


which will very likely cripple the government (obviously you would just love to see that).
We would be better off if the government were shrunk, rather than so intrusive and social engineering.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-05-2008, 09:42 AM
Not at all. But they are certainly more *able* to pay tax than low income earners.

They are paying more tax. Actually, it does not matter what the tax rate is, they will pay more tax.



But hang on Igor - your own proposal did not change the rates for the top brackets. Do you prefer the LDP plan to your own?

My proposal is to remove anomalies and equalise tax rates. LDP's plan is an extension of mine as it also reduces tax.

Any tax is eventually borne by consumer as it will be passed up (or down) the chain. The high amount of tax collected hurts everyone. Even if it's concentrated at the top bracket, low income earners (or receivers) have to pay higher price.

pax
16-05-2008, 05:01 PM
Unfortunately not my imagination. E.g. our city council banned highly efficient drip watering systems because it would discriminate against those who can't afford them.
That's not a Lefty. That's just an idiot.

pax
16-05-2008, 05:02 PM
Hard to call it a fantasy when tax rate cuts have historically raised revenues.
Sure it does, when you cherry pick the data points that support your point of view..

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2008, 06:15 PM
That's not a Lefty. That's just an idiot.
What's the difference?

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2008, 06:16 PM
Sure it does, when you cherry pick the data points that support your point of view..
Not that it matters to Pax, since he thinks money is better off in the hands of the government than in the hands of those who actually earned it.

pax
16-05-2008, 06:52 PM
Not that it matters to Pax, since he thinks money is better off in the hands of the government than in the hands of those who actually earned it.
So do you, when it suits you..

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2008, 06:55 PM
So do you, when it suits you..
Rubbish. I think the government should be concerned about protecting lives and property, not confiscating wealth from the most productive and wasting it in endless government programs.

pax
16-05-2008, 07:27 PM
Rubbish. I think the government should be concerned about protecting lives and property, not confiscating wealth from the most productive and wasting it in endless government programs.
wasting it on an endless war in Iraq though? That's just peachy.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-05-2008, 09:05 PM
wasting it on an endless war in Iraq though? That's just peachy.
No, it should not be wasting money on war in Iraq. whether it's a waste or not, is another matter, as military is the government responsibility.
However, it pales in significance compare other spending.

pax
16-05-2008, 10:57 PM
However, it pales in significance compare other spending.
In Australia that is true. In the US, military spending is utterly staggering.

Capablanca-Fan
17-05-2008, 02:24 AM
In Australia that is true. In the US, military spending is utterly staggering.
Of course, because Europe has long failed to pull its weight.

Reagan's military spending won the cold war, resulting in a "peace dividend".

Capablanca-Fan
17-05-2008, 02:25 AM
wasting it on an endless war in Iraq though? That's just peachy.
Pax would prefer to surrender Iraq to the terrorists, and were it possible, to resurrect Saddam.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-05-2008, 10:36 AM
In Australia that is true. In the US, military spending is utterly staggering.

Why should I care about US? (I anticipate accusation of racism:) )
As far as Australia concern, it pays as we do not have to spend as much on military (strengthening the alliance with US).

The reason for US bloated spending is their incompetence.

Capablanca-Fan
17-05-2008, 01:54 PM
Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/) on Laba's latest hypocrisy:


And to think they’ve been insulted by mere Rudd spinning:


WAYNE Swan’s so-called Robin Hood budget will actually make couples in high-paying jobs with children in care better off (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23711765-5017014,00.html).

That’s due in part to an inconsistency in Rudd’s demands for an end to welfare for the rich:


Wealthy families will benefit on two fronts — income tax cuts that kick in from July 1 and more cash back for sending their kids to childcare when the Child Care Tax Rebate rises from 30 to 50 per cent (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23711765-5017014,00.html).

The inconsistency? Family tax benefits B and the baby bonus will be means tested, but the child care rebates will not. This reflects Labor’s ideological preference for shovelling taxpayer money at working mothers rather than mothers who stay at home with baby.

The hit-the-rich slogans were just using an old ideological placard to hide Labor’s new ideological agenda. Good if it gets punished for both.


A nice way to expose the Rudd Government’s alcopops stunt:


Mr Hockey produced a 200ml champagne bottle and a 275ml alcopop in Parliament yesterday, both priced at $4.49. The champagne contained twice the alcohol, and was taxed at half the rate of the alcopop (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23706271-662,00.html).

Add that criticism to the evidence that the Government is actually banking on alcopops sales to rise (http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/downloads/bp1_bst5.pdf), despite the huge tax grab it imposed to allegedly cut an epidemic of “binge drinking” that hasn’t broken out.

So the following is encouraging, since at least the opposition is trying to oppose for a change instead of going along with all of Laba's asinity:


OPPOSITION Leader Brendan Nelson has sought to revive his ailing leadership with pledges to cut petrol excise and block a 70% tax hike on pre-mixed alcoholic drinks.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-05-2008, 02:57 PM
A nice way to expose the Rudd Government’s alcopops stunt:

[INDENT]Mr Hockey produced a 200ml champagne bottle and a 275ml alcopop in Parliament yesterday, both priced at $4.49. The champagne contained twice the alcohol, and was taxed at half the rate of the alcopop (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23706271-662,00.html).

Add that criticism to the evidence that the Government is actually banking on alcopops sales to rise (http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/downloads/bp1_bst5.pdf), despite the huge tax grab it imposed to allegedly cut an epidemic of “binge drinking” that hasn’t broken out.



I think now I understand sudden explosion of articles about binge drinking short time before the budget.

Kevin Bonham
17-05-2008, 04:22 PM
A nice way to expose the Rudd Government’s alcopops stunt:

[INDENT]Mr Hockey produced a 200ml champagne bottle and a 275ml alcopop in Parliament yesterday, both priced at $4.49. The champagne contained twice the alcohol, and was taxed at half the rate of the alcopop (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23706271-662,00.html).

He could have done it much better using a cheap cask of wine. You can get a 4-litre cask of wine for $10-$12 in many places containing approx 43 standard drinks; for the same price you will be lucky to get a tenth as much alcohol in the form of alcopops. So we already know that alcopops are not being purchased on a bang-for-buck basis (indeed the lower-alcohol alcopops were generally overpriced anyway), and whatever use they have in "binge drinking" has to do with their rapid drinkability and trendiness in certain social circles. On that basis, Hockey's argument is unconvincing.

What we are seeing now is that those going to parties are, instead of buying alcopops, buying spirits (which they can then either mix themselves or else drink straight). So it does nothing to address binge drinking at parties, and if anything makes it worse.

Whether it works in a bar setting depends on whether the consumers decide to stick with alcopops and buy less of them, or else switch to something else.


Add that criticism to the evidence that the Government is actually banking on alcopops sales to rise, despite the huge tax grab it imposed to allegedly cut an epidemic of “binge drinking” that hasn’t broken out.

The reason for that is that alcopops sales are projected to rise so sharply anyway that the tax will only cut the rate of increase.

Both parties are more or less equally silly on the RTDs issue IMO:

* Labor is pushing a populist "morals panic" and addressing it ineffectively. The problem with using taxation to curb a particular form of behaviour is that the tax can render itself ineffective by changing the behaviour pattern it is targetting.

* The Liberals are supporting a tax difference between RTDs and other spirits that was an arbitary aberration created when their GST was introduced. Not only is there no reason RTDs should have been at a lower rate in the first place, but the Liberals don't even have the consistency to suggest that alcohol taxes be addressed across the board. As it is spirit is taxed at a different rate from beer while wines are taxed at a different rate again, which varies from wine to wine depending on how much they cost. The Liberals won't do anything to fix that up, so their action is simply opposition for opposition's sake.

Aaron Guthrie
17-05-2008, 04:33 PM
He could have done it much better using a cheap cask of wine.I believe the technical term is "goon".

Basil
17-05-2008, 04:43 PM
I believe the technical term is "goon".
Goonie!? Oh, that's an albatross.

Kevin Bonham
17-05-2008, 04:48 PM
I believe the technical term is "goon".

I also used to hear the term "boxmonster" (specifically denoting a 4L cask), but it's a while since I last came across it.

Garvinator
17-05-2008, 05:31 PM
Silly question time cause I could not find it by googling a definition: what is rtd in the context talked about here?

eclectic
17-05-2008, 05:37 PM
Silly question time cause I could not find it by googling a definition: what is rtd in the context talked about here?

i'll hazard a guess with

recreational type drinks?

:uhoh:

Kevin Bonham
17-05-2008, 05:40 PM
Silly question time cause I could not find it by googling a definition: what is rtd in the context talked about here?

Stands for ready-to-drink - typically a bottle or can containing a premix of a softdrink and alcohol. Vodka cruisers, bourbon and colas, etc.

Ian Murray
17-05-2008, 05:40 PM
Ready-to-drink?

eclectic
17-05-2008, 05:43 PM
but then again it could have a new meaning were for instance kb to post

this thread has now been rtd

and have a lock put on it

:P :P :P

Aaron Guthrie
17-05-2008, 05:45 PM
Stands for ready-to-drink - typically a bottle or can containing a premix of a softdrink and alcohol. Vodka cruisers, bourbon and colas, etc.Funny term, somehow implying that vodka, bourbon etc. aren't ready-to-drink.

Kevin Bonham
17-05-2008, 06:08 PM
Funny term, somehow implying that vodka, bourbon etc. aren't ready-to-drink.

I think the intended contrast is with someone making the same drink by mixing their own.

(Happy to move this RTDs stuff to a thread of its own upon request).

Desmond
18-05-2008, 07:46 AM
Oh, so it's no "right to drive" after all? :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2008, 01:23 PM
Oh, so it's no "right to drive" after all? :lol:
No, since driving potentially affects other people's property rights (including their lives).

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2008, 01:32 PM
He could have done it much better using a cheap cask of wine. You can get a 4-litre cask of wine for $10-$12 in many places containing approx 43 standard drinks; for the same price you will be lucky to get a tenth as much alcohol in the form of alcopops. So we already know that alcopops are not being purchased on a bang-for-buck basis (indeed the lower-alcohol alcopops were generally overpriced anyway), and whatever use they have in "binge drinking" has to do with their rapid drinkability and trendiness in certain social circles. On that basis, Hockey's argument is unconvincing.
OK, so Hockey's argument wasn't the best he could have used, but it is still very strong against the crass alcopop tax.


What we are seeing now is that those going to parties are, instead of buying alcopops, buying spirits (which they can then either mix themselves or else drink straight). So it does nothing to address binge drinking at parties, and if anything makes it worse.
Of course, and that was Hockey's point.


Both parties are more or less equally silly on the RTDs issue IMO:
Agreed. Another example of bipartisan stupidity is on petrol prices. Nelson's proposal to reduce excise tax will certainly do much more than Rudd's silly "petrol commissioner". Far more of the petrol price is due to greedy government taxes than "profiteering" by the oil companies or petrol stations.

But then, why didn't the Coalition reduce excise in the 11 years it was in government?

And if Laba really is serious about CO2, then it should welcome petrol price rises, which makes the petrol commissioner an even crasser idea.

pax
19-05-2008, 12:48 PM
OK, so Hockey's argument wasn't the best he could have used, but it is still very strong against the crass alcopop tax.
The point about this tax, which Labor have failed to emphasise properly is that the change now brings alcopops excise into line with spirits. Under the previous rules, you actually paid *less* excise by buying a premixed drink than if you bought spirits and mixed them yourself.

You can argue whether or not spirits should be taxed differently to wine and beer, but I don't think there is a good argument for spirits being taxed *less* because they come premixed with lolly water.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-05-2008, 01:29 PM
The point about this tax, which Labor have failed to emphasise properly is that the change now brings alcopops excise into line with spirits. Under the previous rules, you actually paid *less* excise by buying a premixed drink than if you bought spirits and mixed them yourself.

You can argue whether or not spirits should be taxed differently to wine and beer, but I don't think there is a good argument for spirits being taxed *less* because they come premixed with lolly water.

Does RTD cost less then components?
E.g. how much 2lt worth of 10% vodka with soft drink cost compare to .5l of vodka and 1.5l of the same soft drink?
How much tax do you pay for 0.5l vodka and how much tax do you pay for 2lt worth of 10% alcopop?

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2008, 01:34 PM
The point about this tax, which Labor have failed to emphasise properly is that the change now brings alcopops excise into line with spirits.
Their ostensible reason was curbing binge drinking. This has already proven a crock, and was never their true reason as shown by their anticipation of increasing tax revenues over the years.


Under the previous rules, you actually paid *less* excise by buying a premixed drink than if you bought spirits and mixed them yourself.
That's the silliness of differential excise taxes in general. It's a pity that GST didn't replace ALL of them.

pax
19-05-2008, 02:05 PM
Does RTD cost less then components?
E.g. how much 2lt worth of 10% vodka with soft drink cost compare to .5l of vodka and 1.5l of the same soft drink?
The excise is based on the volume of alcohol. The new rules mean that 2L of 10% alcopop will pay the same excise as 0.5L of 40% alcohol.

There are still a lot of stupid excise rules. For example, brandy for some reason pays less excise than other spirits. Beer excise is much less (factor of 10) when purchased in a vessel of 48L or more - presumably something to do with pubs.

Ian Murray
19-05-2008, 02:13 PM
Their ostensible reason was curbing binge drinking. This has already proven a crock, and was never their true reason as shown by their anticipation of increasing tax revenues over the years
Actually alcopops, i.e. spirits mixed with fruit juice or milk/cream and flavouring, are more a cocktail than a mixed spirits like bourbon-and-coke. A Vodka Mudshake for example is as smooth and easy to drink as a Brandy Alexander with a (then) bar price of say half.

My understanding is that most of the binge drinking by young people is done at night clubs. I recall seeing a TV doco showing young girls buying them four or six at a time and skaaling those before backing up for the next round, and admitting they spend around half their weekly pay packets on drink.

Assuming that half one's wages (or current expenditue for the average binge drinker) is pretty well the affordable limit, the price increase via excise duty should reduce total consumption. Switching over to spirits mixers by the glass should have a similar effect - they're not as smooth and easy to drink.

All speculation admittedly, but it seems logical enough to me. Time will tell.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2008, 02:26 PM
Assuming that half one's wages (or current expenditue for the average binge drinker) is pretty well the affordable limit, the price increase via excise duty should reduce total consumption. Switching over to spirits mixers by the glass should have a similar effect — they're not as smooth and easy to drink.
But this has in fact not happened. People switched to harder stuff with more bang for the buck.


All speculation admittedly, but it seems logical enough to me. Time will tell.
All except for the fact that Laba's own estimates show an increasing revenue stream from the tax.

Ian Murray
19-05-2008, 03:11 PM
But this has in fact not happened. People switched to harder stuff with more bang for the buck
There can't be any data yet to substantiate that claim - it's only been three weeks since the excise hike

All except for the fact that Laba's own estimates show an increasing revenue stream from the tax.
Not necessarily contradictory - a 70% excise increase and up to a 69% drop in sales is still a net revenue increase.

Nevertheless I'd like to see the forecast sales reductions which still produce an extra $3 billion in revenue (is that per year or the usual four-year forecast?)

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2008, 03:33 PM
There can't be any data yet to substantiate that claim — it's only been three weeks since the excise hike
Alcopop drinkers will switch to other booze (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23706271-662,00.html)


Not necessarily contradictory — a 70% excise increase and up to a 69% drop in sales is still a net revenue increase.
Most unlikely to happen though.


Nevertheless I'd like to see the forecast sales reductions which still produce an extra $3 billion in revenue (is that per year or the usual four-year forecast?)
Table 6: Australian Government general government revenue (http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/downloads/bp1_bst5.pdf)

pax
19-05-2008, 03:40 PM
But this has in fact not happened. People switched to harder stuff with more bang for the buck.
If they switch to "harder stuff", they will be paying exactly the same excise per volume of alcohol. The only reason it might be cheaper is because alcopops are grossly overpriced already..

Ian Murray
19-05-2008, 04:15 PM
Alcopop drinkers will switch to other booze (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23706271-662,00.html)
That's a newspaper report of Treasury forecasts, not facts. A forecast drop in alcopop sales of 55 million bottles per year, with a "possible" increase in spirit sales (Brendan Nelson is quoted as saying the possibility is 50-50, but the actual Treasury forecast is not quoted)

It will be some time before hard data become available and trends can be mapped. In the meantime the jury is out.

Basil
19-05-2008, 04:45 PM
The point about this tax, which Labor have failed to emphasise properly is that the change now brings alcopops excise into line with spirits. Under the previous rules, you actually paid *less* excise by buying a premixed drink than if you bought spirits and mixed them yourself.

You can argue whether or not spirits should be taxed differently to wine and beer, but I don't think there is a good argument for spirits being taxed *less* because they come premixed with lolly water.
I haven't read everything that has preceded and been written since, BUT ...
If what you say is true, then why did Pretty Boy and and his sensationalist headline-grabbing, focus group-obsessed cronies couch the whole policy in an initiative to address binge drinking??? Huh?

The policy has clearly back-fired as a stunt (geez there's a a shock from the Laba Party) with Z.E.R.O. intrinsic merit.

For lefty sympathisers (that would be pax) to NOW say (as calmly and logically as you please) the issue is really about taxation parity is an

utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter utter

shallow and transparent back-end run trying to patch up awful populist policy that (along with everything else these clowns have and will wheel out) WILL NOT WORK.

Carry on!

Spiny Norman
19-05-2008, 04:56 PM
Jill Singer's column in the Melbourne Herald Sun today was having a poke at the inconsistency of the Rudd government's policy approach re: motherhood ... it gives more benefits to those who place their children in day care than it does to those who choose to stay home. I think, for probably the first time ever, I agreed with her. If Jill can turn on the Labor government, anyone can!

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2008, 06:22 PM
Jill Singer's column in the Melbourne Herald Sun today was having a poke at the inconsistency of the Rudd government's policy approach re: motherhood ... it gives more benefits to those who place their children in day care than it does to those who choose to stay home. I think, for probably the first time ever, I agreed with her. If Jill can turn on the Labor government, anyone can!
That would be a first for me too, agreeing with Red Jill. This is of course another advantage of the LDP idea of an extra tax-free threshold per child (http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm70.pdf) which leaves it up to parents how to handle it, whether to help parents stay at home, pay for childcare, give Granny something ... whatever—it's their choice. It's typical of the Laba socialists to wrench mothers out of the home, with the stick of high taxes that force them to take paid employment to make ends meet, and the carrot of taxpayer-funded daycare.

pax
19-05-2008, 07:21 PM
I haven't read everything that has preceded and been written since, BUT ...
If what you say is true, then why did Pretty Boy and and his sensationalist headline-grabbing, focus group-obsessed cronies couch the whole policy in an initiative to address binge drinking??? Huh?

Of course it was an exercise in spin. But it was also closing a loophole (well known and lobbied against by medical groups for some time) in the existing excise regime.

What's utterly shallow is you guys painting it as some sort of left-wing exercise in social engineering.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2008, 07:22 PM
What's utterly shallow is you guys painting it as some sort of left-wing exercise in social engineering.
Oh, it's OUR fault is it that Laba spruiked about how it was gonna cure binge drinking?

Projection is a common foible among lefties.

Basil
19-05-2008, 08:44 PM
Of course it was an exercise in spin. But it was also closing a loophole (well known and lobbied against by medical groups for some time) in the existing excise regime.
Thanks. I'll add it to 'The List!'


What's utterly shallow is you guys painting it as some sort of left-wing exercise in social engineering.
Now you're spinning! I'm not painting it as anything of the sort. I'm simply calling Rudd on his spin and his backflip! The idea of social engineering never entered my mind - thanks very much.

pax
20-05-2008, 12:40 AM
shallow and transparent back-end run trying to patch up awful populist policy that (along with everything else these clowns have and will wheel out) WILL NOT WORK.
Speaking of awful populist policy, what do you think of Nelson's petrol excise cut?

Basil
20-05-2008, 01:23 AM
Speaking of awful populist policy, what do you think of Nelson's petrol excise cut?
Same. Awful populist policy.

Difference is Nelson's policy is doable and 'is what it is' on its face, although I certainly don't support it. Krudd & Co just cocked up and got caught :whistle:

Have I mentioned that they're plonkers and that they'll be chucked out for incompetence, recently? :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2008, 01:26 AM
The anecdotally reported increase in straight spirit consumption relates to those buying at bottleshops. I'm pretty sure mix-your-own was much cheaper anyway, which makes sense in terms of volume and packaging considerations alone (had a look at this a while back and noticed many straight spirits were around $1 per SD ex bottleshop whereas RTDs were twice as expensive or more) but the sudden increase has jolted people into noticing it and being more willing to deal with the inconvenience of mixing their own.

At bars, straight spirits are typically fairly expensive. Before the hike the better (read: stronger) vodka RTDs came out at about $3.50-$4 per SD in the less extortionate bars; if anyone knows a way to get straight spirits at bars that are much better bang for buck than that, then this is something I obviously need to know about. :lol:

Garvinator
20-05-2008, 01:30 AM
Have I mentioned that they're plonkers and that they'll be chucked out for incompetence, recently? :whistle:
Not so sure about this. Personal opinion here- in each state, the labor governments have been awful for a long time and still the libs have been even worse in opposition (Nats/Libs here in Qld.).

So I would not be surprised if fed libs go in the same direction. I know you will say that wont happen, but I am sure many people said that the libs would become hopeless after they got chucked out in state elections.

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2008, 01:36 AM
Garvin is correct. Hopeless governments don't generally lose against hopeless oppositions. Indeed, they tend to be returned convincingly.

Basil
20-05-2008, 01:40 AM
Garvin is correct. Hopeless governments don't generally lose against hopeless oppositions. Indeed, they tend to be returned convincingly.
Well I hope you all win lotto then! And everyone you care about as well!

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2008, 09:35 AM
Speaking of awful populist policy, what do you think of Nelson's petrol excise cut?
Already commented. Its redeeming feature is that it would do more to cut petrol prices than Rudd's crass idea of a petrol commissioner. After all, by far the biggest profiteers on petrol is not the wicked Big Oil who supply or greedy petrol stations, but the government itself with its excise tax then the GST on this excise, a tax on a tax.

But if it were such a good idea, then why didn't the Libs cut fuel tax when in government for 11 years?

However, even worse is Rudd promising to ease petrol pain, when the green gods he worships actual demand more expensive petrol.

Spiny Norman
20-05-2008, 09:50 AM
Given that petrol/oil is likely to be a diminishing resource, I would like to see the government gradually wean itself off that as a revenue source. For example, they could set an arbitrary figure (perhaps based on best scientific estimates?) on how long they expect oil to be a taxable resource. Lets say 50 years for the sake of the argument. Then they should:

-- index their current taxation to the inflation rate
---- LESS "2% each year for each of 50 years" (obviously also indexed as above)

meaning that at the end of the process they derive no revenue from the resource. If vast new resources of oil are discovered (or expected reserves are lost/diminished) then the formula could be adjusted.

I would hate to see them get to 50 years from now and find that oil dries up and they then have a massive hole in the budget.

pax
20-05-2008, 11:57 AM
Difference is Nelson's policy is doable and 'is what it is' on its face, although I certainly don't support it. Krudd & Co just cocked up and got caught :whistle:
What do you mean they cocked up? You think mixing vodka with lolly water merits a discount on excise?

Have I mentioned that they're plonkers and that they'll be chucked out for incompetence, recently?
They won't while the other lot are even bigger plonkers and can't even make up their minds what their policies are!

pax
20-05-2008, 11:59 AM
I would hate to see them get to 50 years from now and find that oil dries up and they then have a massive hole in the budget.

:hmm: :hmm: Methinks there will be bigger problems than a hole in the budget..

pax
20-05-2008, 12:00 PM
But if it were such a good idea, then why didn't the Libs cut fuel tax when in government for 11 years?
This is the question they cannot answer.

The problem with this kind of policy is that it distances the Libs from the one thing they have going for them - Howard's economic record.

Spiny Norman
20-05-2008, 12:18 PM
:hmm: :hmm: Methinks there will be bigger problems than a hole in the budget..
True ... but if we're expecting the government to solve those bigger problems we have no hope whatsoever ... I was assuming that entrepreneurs/scientists/industry/etc will solve the alternative fuel issue.

Basil
20-05-2008, 02:50 PM
What do you mean they cocked up?
Explained very clearly above.


You think mixing vodka with lolly water merits a discount on excise?
Words in mouth again. Developing a bad habit

pax
20-05-2008, 03:08 PM
Explained very clearly above.
Nope, not really.


Words in mouth again. Developing a bad habit
I've been taking lessons from Jono. :owned: :owned:

But seriously, why is it a cockup to close a known loophole regarding the rates of excise for spirits? Sure they're overplaying the whole binge drinking/ underage drinking angle, but a cockup? Hardly.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2008, 04:26 PM
Given that petrol/oil is likely to be a diminishing resource,
People have been saying that for over a century (http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/5oilreservehistory.html):


• 1879 -- US Geological Survey formed in part because of fear of oil shortages.

• 1882 -- Institute of Mining Engineers estimates 95 million barrels of oil remain. With 25 milliion barrels per year output, "Some day the cheque will come back indorsed no funds, and we are approaching that day very fast," Samuel Wrigley says. (Pratt, p. 124).

• 1906 -- Fears of an oil shortage are confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Representatives of the Detroit Board of Commerce attended hearings in Washington and told a Senate hearing that car manufacturers worried "not so much [about] cost as ... supply."

• 1919, Scientific American notes that the auto industry could no longer ignore the fact that only 20 years worth of U.S. oil was left. "The burden falls upon the engine. It must adapt itself to less volatile fuel, and it must be made to burn the fuel with less waste.... Automotive engineers must turn their thoughts away from questions of speed and weight... and comfort and endurance, to avert what ... will turn out to be a calamity, seriously disorganizing an indispensable system of transportation."

• 1920 -- David White, chief geologist of USGS, estimates total oil remaining in the US at 6.7 billion barrels. "In making this estimate, which included both proved reserves and resources still remaining to be discovered, White conceded that it might well be in error by as much as 25 percent." (Pratt, p. 125. Emphasis added).

• 1925 -- US Commerce Dept. says that while U.S. oil production doubled between 1914 and 1921, it did not kept pace with fuel demand as the number of cars increased.

• 1928 -- US analyst Ludwell Denny in his book "We Fight for Oil" noted the domestic oil shortage and says international diplomacy had failed to secure any reliable foreign sources of oil for the United States. Fear of oil shortages would become the most important factor in international relations, even so great as to force the U.S. into war with Great Britain to secure access to oil in the Persian Gulf region, Denny said.

• 1926 -- Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 4.5 billion barrels remain.

• 1930 -- Some 25 million American cars are on the road, up from 3 million in 1918.

• 1932 -- Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 10 billion barrels of oil remain.

• 1944 -- Petroleum Administrator for War estimates 20 billion barrels of oil remain.

• 1950 -- American Petroleum Institute says world oil reserves are at 100 billion barrels. (See Jean Laherre, Forecast of oil and gas supply)

• 1956 -- M.King Hubbard predicts peak in US oil production by 1970.

• 1966 - 1977 -- 19 billion barrels added to US reserves, most of which was from fields discovered before 1966. (As M.A. Adelman notes: "These fields were no gift of nature. They were a growth of knowledge, paid for by heavy investment.")

• 1980 -- Remaining proven oil reserves put at 648 billion barrels

• 1993 -- Remaining proven oil reserves put at 999 billion barrels

• 2000 -- Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1016 billion barrels.

But as long as government doesn't apply price controls, there should be no problem. As oil becomes scarcer, it becomes more expensive, encouraging concumers to conserve and producers to investigate new, previously uneconomic sources. See for example The Oil Supply — The Doomsday Scenarios are Flawed (http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm).

The same principles apply to other natural resources. The economist Julian Simon won a famous bet with theoft-falsified doom-mongering charlatan Paul R. Ehrlich (http://economics.about.com/b/2007/09/27/grab-bag-munger-and-roberts-on-recycling-peak-oil-and-steroids.htm), who was chicken-littling about running out of metals (as well as population doom). But Simon bet that the prices would drop, signifying greater availability, and even allowed Ehrlich to choose the metals. Simon won all five:


Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb, said "If I were a gambler I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Thought England wouldn't be able to provide for it's own food. Didn't work out. Simon challenged Ehrlich to a concrete bet on something they could actually measure, not just whether England would "cease to exist". September 29, 1980, each put up $1000 allocated to five different resources: bet was that prices would fall, in inflation-adjusted terms, over the next ten years. Ehrlich picked chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten and bet the prices would rise. Ten years later, not only had the prices fallen in inflation-adjusted terms, but some prices had fallen in nominal terms despite high inflation. 800 million population increase, largest in one decade, which Ehrlich's argument would have put even greater price pressure on these things. Simon won because you don't have to know the way human ingenuity will out of self-interest will find outstrip scarcity.


I would like to see the government gradually wean itself off that as a revenue source.
For sure, the government should stop its greedy tax grab. But what lefties would bitterly denounce as "greed" or "profiteering" or "gouging" when private industry does it is applauded when government does it.

Basil
20-05-2008, 04:34 PM
But seriously, why is it a cockup to close a known loophole regarding the rates of excise for spirits? Sure they're overplaying the whole binge drinking/ underage drinking angle, but a cockup? Hardly.
Overplaying!!!??? No. Laba sold the policy as exclusively one thing and one thing only - viz binge drinking.

Once that was summarily debunked, then and only then did the switch come and it was argued (as you are doing now) entirely as a parity exercise.

This is not about spin. This is about being caught out with a f*** up! In fact it's very lucky for Laba that there was a saving resource (the late-found parity argument) - otherwise the RTD binge hike would have been not only entirely unjustified, but one would have to ask (as one is still entitled to) "what the bloody hell was Rudd dribbling about when talking in terms of a solution to binge drinking".

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2008, 04:47 PM
(the late-found parity argument)

I think it more likely that they knew about the parity issue all along, but chose to market it primarily as a binge-drinking morals panic anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2008, 05:28 PM
I think it more likely that they knew about the parity issue all along, but chose to market it primarily as a binge-drinking morals panic anyway.
If Howard have done that, the Leftmedia would have trumpeted the blatant dishonesty. Gunner's theory is actually more charitable to Laba.

pax
20-05-2008, 05:54 PM
Overplaying!!!??? No. Laba sold the policy as exclusively one thing and one thing only - viz binge drinking.



The Government is determined to bring a greater focus on preventative health. Our National Binge Drinking Strategy brings the tax treatment of 'ready‑to‑drink' alcoholic beverages in line with full‑strength spirits to help address binge drinking among young Australians, particularly young women. We will work with the States and draw from the revenue raised to fund preventative health measures.

Ahem..

Basil
20-05-2008, 06:01 PM
Ahem..
Nice try! No cigar. For you as the blinkered public defender or for the clowns in government.

The Swan piece (budget announcement) you have cited is the after-the-fact patch-up!!

This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23605007-2,00.html) is the dribble that was being perpetrated before the patch-up, and to which I am referring. The whole policy was
-- ill conceived
-- a politicking shot at the Howard government
-- entirely about binge drinking

Here's another one. (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/04/27/1209234617917.html)

Stop wasting my time (and yours)

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2008, 06:24 PM
“Readers... will recall that from time to time in covering an election cycle I have referred to a voting bloc that political analysts of more delicate sensibilities would rather not mention, to wit, the moron vote. It is a constituency composed of politically ignorant citizens who nonetheless feel very intensely about political issues once their respective demagogues have notified them of the issues, suitably transmogrified. The moron vote’s rank and file might, in point of fact, not be morons at all. Some might be marine biologists or interior decorators or professors of romance languages, and in their chosen field they might be very knowledgeable. Yet when it comes to politics they are in the dark. They are very angry but still in the dark. We can all feel superior to these poor souls, if we are bereft of charity, but we might also feel a twinge of compassion for them. After all, they are not totally to blame for their ignorance. Most have been misled by their political messiahs, or should I say by their seducers? The fact is that in many elections clever politicians shamelessly prey on their supporters’ insecurities and the gaps in their political knowledge.” —Emmett Tyrrell

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2008, 08:57 PM
If Howard have done that, the Leftmedia would have trumpeted the blatant dishonesty.

Which newspapers do you consider "Leftmedia"? Might be interesting to look at their coverage of the alcopops thing in light of that.

Can't say I've seen that many papers unabashedly in favour of it, but I haven't read the Age for a while so I don't know where it stands on the matter.

pax
21-05-2008, 01:25 AM
The Swan piece (budget announcement) you have cited is the after-the-fact patch-up!!
Right. And I suppose the budget papers are an after-the-fact patch-up too?!

pax
21-05-2008, 01:53 AM
This (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23605007-2,00.html) is the dribble that was being perpetrated before the patch-up, and to which I am referring. The whole policy was
-- ill conceived
-- a politicking shot at the Howard government
-- entirely about binge drinking

Here's another one. (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/04/27/1209234617917.html)
Hmm. Quote from the second of your links:


"Government sources said the explosion in consumption of the drinks coincided with a "policy mistake" of the former treasurer, who cut the RTD excise in 2000. They said that cut created a tax loophole, lowering taxes on pre-mixed drinks compared with the same drink mixed by hand."

Igor_Goldenberg
21-05-2008, 10:41 AM
Despite RTd tax hike be a mistake, it is a minor issue.
Tax on "luxury cars" (e.g. cars that cost more then 57,123) is a more serious issue. Despite all the envy rhetoric there are more consequences then meets the eye.

This tax hike will have a chain reaction. Many so called "luxury car", especially around the threshold mark, are bought by middle income earners when they come to a second hand market (say, half a price in four years). They will become more expensive as a result of tax hike.

However, there is a much more serious issue. It's Medicare surcharge threshold for those that do not have private hospital insurance. It was lifted to 100K for single and 150K for couple. As a result, between 500,000 to 1,000,000 will leave private insurance. That has two implications:

1. Private funds will have to increase their prices.
2. Much more pressure on public health system.

Desmond
21-05-2008, 10:52 AM
However, there is a much more serious issue. It's Medicare surcharge threshold for those that do not have private hospital insurance. It was lifted to 100K for single and 150K for couple. As a result, between 500,000 to 1,000,000 will leave private insurance. That has two implications:

1. Private funds will have to increase their prices.
2. Much more pressure on public health system.
I'm not so sure that so many will leave the private system for that reason. Is avoiding the surchage the main reason have private health insurance? I do not think so.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-05-2008, 10:57 AM
I'm not so sure that so many will leave the private system for that reason. Is avoiding the surchage the main reason have private health insurance? I do not think so.

It is for the youngsters. I have some anecdotal evidences of young people saying they will reconsider when they are 30.
Some older people will leave as well when premium rises next April.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2008, 11:06 AM
Tax on "luxury cars" (e.g. cars that cost more then 57,123) is a more serious issue. Despite all the envy rhetoric there are more consequences then meets the eye.
As you say, it's really an envy tax not a fiscally responsible one. But the Laba ministers don't care, because their own transportation is provided by the taxpayer.


However, there is a much more serious issue. It's Medicare surcharge threshold for those that do not have private hospital insurance. It was lifted to 100K for single and 150K for couple. As a result, between 500,000 to 1,000,000 will leave private insurance. That has two implications:

1. Private funds will have to increase their prices.
2. Much more pressure on public health system.
This is Laba's idea of fixing the public health system: provide incentives to overload it further.

Desmond
21-05-2008, 12:07 PM
It is for the youngsters. I have some anecdotal evidences of young people saying they will reconsider when they are 30.
Some older people will leave as well when premium rises next April.
Are there really 500,000 to 1,000,000 youngsters in the $100k bracket?

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2008, 12:18 PM
Are there really 500,000 to 1,000,000 youngsters in the $100k bracket?
It seems accepted even by Laba that their changes will drive more people out of private health. How can this not further overburden our already stretched public health "system"?

Desmond
21-05-2008, 12:23 PM
It seems accepted even by Laba that their changes will drive more people out of private health.Do you have a reference for that? Would be interested to read more about it.
How can this not further overburden our already stretched public health "system"?I'm not convinced it will drive people out of the private system.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2008, 12:49 PM
Do you have a reference for that? Would be interested to read more about it.

The Australian Health Insurance Association yesterday released estimates (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/labor-accused-of-bowing-to-the-bureaucrats/2008/05/12/1210444338942.html) that the Government would save $85 million a year in lower health insurance tax rebate costs flowing from the fall in membership. But the state governments would have to find an additional $193 million to deal with increased demand for public hospital services, said the association's chief executive, Michael Armitage.

Ms Roxon said it was difficult to project what the impact would be on public hospital demand. The Government maintains it has already pledged more than $1.6 billion extra for public hospitals and more nurses. [See, a tacit admission that more people will flood in as a result of the changes.

But the president of the Australian Medical Association, Rosanna Capolingua, said that, even with the cash promised for public hospitals, those in genuine need would face longer waits for treatment.

Anything that gave a signal people should drop or not take up private health insurance "means that they will automatically fall into the public sector if they need health care," she said.

The needy would "wait longer for the radiation oncology if they've got a cancer. They will, indeed, be penalised. And they don't have any option. They can't buy themselves out of there."


I'm not convinced it will drive people out of the private system.
How could it not, given the incentives?

Desmond
21-05-2008, 01:52 PM
I see your point. I am not sure how big the impact will be though.

pax
21-05-2008, 02:52 PM
I'm not convinced it will drive people out of the private system.
The Medicare surcharge is effectively compulsory private insurance for people earning over the specified income level. The surcharge works out to being roughly the same or higher than basic hospital cover.

Obviously the private insurance industry is complaining because the Government has stopped forcing a large number of people into private insurance.

It's inevitable that some people will drop their private cover. What remains to be seen is whether the public system will cope with the higher demand that results.

Basil
21-05-2008, 03:11 PM
Obviously the private insurance industry is complaining because the Government has stopped forcing a large number of people into private insurance.
... creating an environment where people can relieve pressure on the public system.

Is that what you meant to say?

Igor_Goldenberg
21-05-2008, 03:39 PM
Are there really 500,000 to 1,000,000 youngsters in the $100k bracket?
Of course not. Those that earn over 50K pa (not 100K) will drop. And yes, there are plenty of under 30s in this category.

pax
21-05-2008, 04:14 PM
... creating an environment where people can relieve pressure on the public system.

Is that what you meant to say?

Do they? Basic private hospital packages which satisfy the surcharge criteria are sometimes pretty useless to normal, young, healthy people. Such packages often have such large excesses, that many people prefer to be treated publicly anyway.

Ian Murray
21-05-2008, 04:35 PM
Do they? Basic private hospital packages which satisfy the surcharge criteria are sometimes pretty useless to normal, young, healthy people. Such packages often have such large excesses, that many people prefer to be treated publicly anyway.
Bear in mind also that in many cases privately-insured patients enter the public health system anyway, notably accident/emergency victims and thse needing particular specialist treatment not available in the private sector.

Basil
21-05-2008, 05:06 PM
Do they? Basic private hospital packages which satisfy the surcharge criteria are sometimes pretty useless to normal, young, healthy people. Such packages often have such large excesses, that many people prefer to be treated publicly anyway.
What Ian says is true, and that is part of the picture. However the answer to the broader original question of relieving burden is still "yes".

I am a good case in point. At age 42 I have been to hospital for various bits and pieces that needed checking out over the last 5 years or so. My visits have been borne by the public system. Bloody Duggan clogging up and draining the system (of course I was glad of it - don't get me wrong - and a very good system too by all accounts (compared to the UK and US)).

18 months ago I switched the family to private. Since then 4 x Duggans have not presented to the public system and have instead attended upon private hospitals. Ditto for a parent a coupla years back with cancer.

This little story equates to real people attending real private hospitals, creating a quantifiable decreased amount of stress on the public system.

To deny stories like these aren't happening everyday is silly (not that you are) - but now you have the evidence.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2008, 05:48 PM
Do they? Basic private hospital packages which satisfy the surcharge criteria are sometimes pretty useless to normal, young, healthy people. Such packages often have such large excesses, that many people prefer to be treated publicly anyway.
Even worse, I know someone who a few years back who was actually disadvantaged for having paid for private health when he was treated publicly. If he had not had private health, he would not have paid a cent.

The answer is better private health insurance if the government butts out completely. It should be more like our car insurance: paying for major damage, but not minor things like oil changes, tune-ups, new tyres. So we would not bother claiming insurance for those things. Also, since it's our money, there is an incentive to keep costs low.

But if government were providing car insurance like health insurance, every little scratch and maintenance would be paid for, and our taxes would be even worse to support this. And because the car owner would be separated to a large extent from the real costs, there would be no incentive to keep them down.

Spiny Norman
22-05-2008, 07:56 AM
I've always been told (and have told my family) ... if you are injured and are taken somewhere in an ambulance, answer no questions about health insurance, pretend you don't know! The best advanced health care (major accidents, cancer, et al) would appear to be in the public system, and you don't want to be treated as anything other than a public patient initially. Later on, once the scenario is fully understood, one might want to access more services, therefore the "Oh, he's insured" and be revealed.

Private insurance is excellent if you want elective surgery. I don't think its much good for anything else.

Desmond
22-05-2008, 10:00 AM
Private insurance is excellent if you want elective surgery. I don't think its much good for anything else.Yes but the definition of "elective" surgery is pretty broad. Eg, getting something fixed that is causing you pain all day every day can be considered elective.

Capablanca-Fan
22-05-2008, 11:57 AM
Yes but the definition of "elective" surgery is pretty broad. Eg, getting something fixed that is causing you pain all day every day can be considered elective.
In countries with socialized medicine like Britain and Canada (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/socialized_medicine_is_broken.html), there is rationing which takes the form of waiting lists and age restrictions on who can receive surgery. Here, the "elective" is about whether you elect to live or die.