|
On February 09 2013 10:49 paralleluniverse wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/poor-returns-could-force-rethink-of-mining-tax-20130208-2e3q9.htmlA note on the poultry revenue raised by the mining tax so far. This is why it should not have been watered down, Rudd was right to push for a large mining tax. Arguments to scrap the tax because it's not raising enough revenues is completely backwards. Surely $126 million > $0. The main point to grasp is that minerals in the earth are immobile. If mining companies want to dig this dirt up from the ground, then they have no choice than to pay whatever tax the government sets. They can't offshore mining, because it's in the ground, here. If they don't dig it up, someone else eventually will. Therefore, taking into account the mild disincentive effects of tax hikes, the mining tax should be increased to squeeze every cent of revenue possible out of mining companies over the long term. Minerals are also finite and will eventually run out, so that the tax should raised as soon as possible. Lastly, the mining tax wasn't some unsolicited, revenue grabbing scheme concocted by the government. It was a key recommendation from the Henry Tax Review. Dammit parallel, why can't more Americans think as you do
I've enjoyed reading this thread, though I can't contribute too much.
|
On February 09 2013 10:49 paralleluniverse wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/poor-returns-could-force-rethink-of-mining-tax-20130208-2e3q9.htmlA note on the poultry revenue raised by the mining tax so far. This is why it should not have been watered down, Rudd was right to push for a large mining tax. Arguments to scrap the tax because it's not raising enough revenues is completely backwards. Surely $126 million > $0. The main point to grasp is that minerals in the earth are immobile. If mining companies want to dig this dirt up from the ground, then they have no choice than to pay whatever tax the government sets. They can't offshore mining, because it's in the ground, here. If they don't dig it up, someone else eventually will. Therefore, taking into account the mild disincentive effects of tax hikes, the mining tax should be increased to squeeze every cent of revenue possible out of mining companies over the long term. Minerals are also finite and will eventually run out, so that the tax should be raised as soon as possible. Lastly, the mining tax wasn't some unsolicited, revenue grabbing scheme concocted by the government. It was a key recommendation from the Henry Tax Review.
The way the Rudd government handled the reccomendations of the Henry tax review was terrible. They held onto it for ages, then when they released it, they pretty much ruled out doing anything but the mining tax. The tax itself is a good idea, but Labor's handling of the announcing and introduction of the tax was horrendous.
Which is pretty much what I think about a lot of Labor's actions. They have good policy, but they are terrible at implementing them politically, and are terrible at explaining them to the public.
|
As with a number of people I guess, I'm pretty fed up with both parties, but I just can't bare the thought of Tony Abbott being PM. I cannot stand him whatsoever.
|
An opinion piece on how Labor monumentally stuffed up the mining tax, and why bipartisanship is important:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/abbott-partly-to-blame-for-tax-debacle-20130217-2el8q.html
And it brings us to the mining tax. Let me be crystal clear: Labor has made an almighty hash of the resource super profits tax/minerals resource rent tax, revealing an abysmal level of political nous, moral courage and administrative competence.
It failed to release the Henry tax reform report for discussion well before announcing its decisions (thereby catching the miners unawares), failed to explain an utterly mystifying tax measure (and, before that, press Treasury to come up with something more intuitive).
It failed to stop the entire business community joining the miners' crusade against the tax, failed to counter the economic nonsense the miners peddled in their TV ad campaign, and failed to hold its own in the negotiations with the big three miners, allowing them to turn the tax into a policy dog's breakfast that, at least in its early years, would raise next to nothing.
In all this Kevin Rudd has to take much of the blame (for lacking the courage to release the Henry report early), Wayne Swan has to take much of the blame (for not putting Treasury through its paces and being so weak at explaining the tax) and Julia Gillard has to take much of the blame (for decapitating Rudd and then being so desperate to rush to an election she was prepared to agree to anything the miners demanded, without proper Treasury scrutiny).
|
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/voter-support-for-gillard-and-labor-plunges-20130217-2ele0.html
Labor 44%, Liberal 56%. Gillard 35%, Rudd 61%. Abbot 35%, Turnbull 58%.
If today's polls are right, Gillard is completely screwed. I'm happy to vote for Turnbull and would very enthusiastically vote for Rudd. But I'm not going to vote for Gillard, and there's no way in hell I'll ever consider voting Abbot.
I completely agree with John Quiggin (he's always a good source on Australian economic and political analysis) who says to bring Rudd back before it's too late:
We’ve had quite a few debates here about the Labor leadership. While there are plenty of issues, there is one that, at this point in the cycle, trumps all the others. Of the two serious contenders, who is more likely to save Australia from the disaster of an Abbott-led coalition government? The answer to this question is so clear-cut that I find it impossible to believe anyone would dispute it: Julia Gillard has almost no chance of victory at this point, while Kevin Rudd has a chance. There’s certainly room for debate about how good Rudd’s chances are, but none, I think, as regards Gillard’s. And, whatever the stylistic differences, in substantive terms Gillard’s agenda is the one she inherited from Rudd. The question now is whether we will have another three years to implement that agenda, or whether we have a Newman-style slash and burn assault on the public sector, the environment, science, women’s rights and, of course, the working class. The only thing likely to stop that is an immediate change of leadership. Source: http://johnquiggin.com/2013/02/18/who-wants-abbott-pm/
|
On February 18 2013 20:22 paralleluniverse wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/voter-support-for-gillard-and-labor-plunges-20130217-2ele0.htmlLabor 44%, Liberal 56%. Gillard 35%, Rudd 61%. Abbot 35%, Turnbull 58%. If today's polls are right, Gillard is completely screwed. I'm happy to vote for Turnbull and would very enthusiastically vote for Rudd. But I'm not going to vote for Gillard, and there's no way in hell I'll ever consider voting Abbot. I completely agree with John Quiggin (he's always a good source on Australian economic and political analysis) who says to bring Rudd back before it's too late: Show nested quote +We’ve had quite a few debates here about the Labor leadership. While there are plenty of issues, there is one that, at this point in the cycle, trumps all the others. Of the two serious contenders, who is more likely to save Australia from the disaster of an Abbott-led coalition government? The answer to this question is so clear-cut that I find it impossible to believe anyone would dispute it: Julia Gillard has almost no chance of victory at this point, while Kevin Rudd has a chance. There’s certainly room for debate about how good Rudd’s chances are, but none, I think, as regards Gillard’s. And, whatever the stylistic differences, in substantive terms Gillard’s agenda is the one she inherited from Rudd. The question now is whether we will have another three years to implement that agenda, or whether we have a Newman-style slash and burn assault on the public sector, the environment, science, women’s rights and, of course, the working class. The only thing likely to stop that is an immediate change of leadership. Source: http://johnquiggin.com/2013/02/18/who-wants-abbott-pm/
Rudd might have a better chance, but changing leaders again might leave the voters even more disillusioned with Labor. Imagine the scare ads Liberal could run in relation to that.
I'm with you on Turnbull, but the problem is that given current polls, the Liberals don't need him as leader to win. Unless the polls narrow very soon, it'll be too late to change leaders and means we'll likely have Abbott as our next PM.
|
let me point something out for all the non australians here and im not going to try and use sentence structure cause it doesnt deserve it
liberal is supported (money) by businesses and look out for their interests
labor is supported (money) by the workers unions and look out for blue collar worker types
when i was at uni it was the drop kicks doing political science degrees that werent ever going to have a career that discuss these things just like on this forum and so theyre families are labor supports and so are they. thats why majority posting saying labor so much better
the majority of people who dont speak out and have these ridiculous quotes from pOL 101 aka everyone else that went to uni has an actual job and career and are to busy to sit here supporting a joke party with joke ideals.
there current run in government was started by promising all these low socioeconomic status people free laptops for everyone... then turns out just for y9-12 at school... then turns out no funding left... then turns out no more pcs... i remember standing in line hearing these types saying oh i cant wait for my free laptop
so basically the people here making labor look good... well... i just described them... now re-read their stories with open mind
its the same way opinions from protests get blown out of proportion - some 'protests' of 1000 people... well 1000 people supported u, the rest of australia thats a few million didnt go out and march and dont think its an issue.
|
On February 18 2013 21:20 k204 wrote:let me point something out for all the non australians here and im not going to try and use sentence structure cause it doesnt deserve it liberal is supported (money) by businesses and look out for their interests labor is supported (money) by the workers unions and look out for blue collar worker types when i was at uni it was the drop kicks doing political science degrees that werent ever going to have a career that discuss these things just like on this forum and so theyre families are labor supports and so are they. thats why majority posting saying labor so much better the majority of people who dont speak out and have these ridiculous quotes from pOL 101 aka everyone else that went to uni has an actual job and career and are to busy to sit here supporting a joke party with joke ideals. there current run in government was started by promising all these low socioeconomic status people free laptops for everyone... then turns out just for y9-12 at school... then turns out no funding left... then turns out no more pcs... i remember standing in line hearing these types saying oh i cant wait for my free laptop so basically the people here making labor look good... well... i just described them... now re-read their stories with open mind its the same way opinions from protests get blown out of proportion - some 'protests' of 1000 people... well 1000 people supported u, the rest of australia thats a few million didnt go out and march and dont think its an issue. This post doesn't make any sense. Many employed, educated hard-workers vote Labor and by randomly insulting them you do your argument no justice. Lack of respect for the subject matter does not excuse poor spelling and communication skills. Tens of thousands of teachers recently went on a rally in Victoria, and it definitely didn't get disproportionate media attention. The 1-to-1 school laptop program was actually a resounding success in nation-wide implementation and in improving our education standards, it was never "free laptops for everyone".
Responding to the OP, I think Labor is the best choice in the long term, given their commitment to education spending and reform. Even though Gillard isn't the most inspiring leader, she gets stuff done and steps such as the carbon tax and NBN are good examples of her ability to create infrastructure. In contrast, the Liberal party hasn't released ANY policies, giving only a half-hearted promise to return to "surplus". A lot of people need to realize that debt is not a dirty word, and that during a recession it's actually beneficial. also the Greens are great, but they're not going to get enough of a majority to make any big changes, at least not in Parliament.
|
On February 18 2013 21:20 k204 wrote:let me point something out for all the non australians here and im not going to try and use sentence structure cause it doesnt deserve it liberal is supported (money) by businesses and look out for their interests labor is supported (money) by the workers unions and look out for blue collar worker types when i was at uni it was the drop kicks doing political science degrees that werent ever going to have a career that discuss these things just like on this forum and so theyre families are labor supports and so are they. thats why majority posting saying labor so much better the majority of people who dont speak out and have these ridiculous quotes from pOL 101 aka everyone else that went to uni has an actual job and career and are to busy to sit here supporting a joke party with joke ideals. there current run in government was started by promising all these low socioeconomic status people free laptops for everyone... then turns out just for y9-12 at school... then turns out no funding left... then turns out no more pcs... i remember standing in line hearing these types saying oh i cant wait for my free laptop so basically the people here making labor look good... well... i just described them... now re-read their stories with open mind its the same way opinions from protests get blown out of proportion - some 'protests' of 1000 people... well 1000 people supported u, the rest of australia thats a few million didnt go out and march and dont think its an issue. Yep.
And 47% of Americans pay no income taxes, are victims, feel entitled to government handouts, won't take any responsibility for their lives, and will vote for Obama no matter what.
So I completely agree with your generalizations.
|
On February 18 2013 21:20 k204 wrote:let me point something out for all the non australians here and im not going to try and use sentence structure cause it doesnt deserve it liberal is supported (money) by businesses and look out for their interests labor is supported (money) by the workers unions and look out for blue collar worker types when i was at uni it was the drop kicks doing political science degrees that werent ever going to have a career that discuss these things just like on this forum and so theyre families are labor supports and so are they. thats why majority posting saying labor so much better the majority of people who dont speak out and have these ridiculous quotes from pOL 101 aka everyone else that went to uni has an actual job and career and are to busy to sit here supporting a joke party with joke ideals. there current run in government was started by promising all these low socioeconomic status people free laptops for everyone... then turns out just for y9-12 at school... then turns out no funding left... then turns out no more pcs... i remember standing in line hearing these types saying oh i cant wait for my free laptop so basically the people here making labor look good... well... i just described them... now re-read their stories with open mind its the same way opinions from protests get blown out of proportion - some 'protests' of 1000 people... well 1000 people supported u, the rest of australia thats a few million didnt go out and march and dont think its an issue.
You created an account to post that? Your time could've been better spent.
The pro Labor disposition of users here can be explained simply enough. Being a gaming forum, the userbase is quite young and young people are more likely to vote Labor.
Go to other political blogs (Bolt's for example) and you'll see people, who apparently despite having jobs and careers, can find time to support the Liberals.
|
|
On February 18 2013 22:14 Mana101 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 21:20 k204 wrote:let me point something out for all the non australians here and im not going to try and use sentence structure cause it doesnt deserve it liberal is supported (money) by businesses and look out for their interests labor is supported (money) by the workers unions and look out for blue collar worker types when i was at uni it was the drop kicks doing political science degrees that werent ever going to have a career that discuss these things just like on this forum and so theyre families are labor supports and so are they. thats why majority posting saying labor so much better the majority of people who dont speak out and have these ridiculous quotes from pOL 101 aka everyone else that went to uni has an actual job and career and are to busy to sit here supporting a joke party with joke ideals. there current run in government was started by promising all these low socioeconomic status people free laptops for everyone... then turns out just for y9-12 at school... then turns out no funding left... then turns out no more pcs... i remember standing in line hearing these types saying oh i cant wait for my free laptop so basically the people here making labor look good... well... i just described them... now re-read their stories with open mind its the same way opinions from protests get blown out of proportion - some 'protests' of 1000 people... well 1000 people supported u, the rest of australia thats a few million didnt go out and march and dont think its an issue. This post doesn't make any sense. Many employed, educated hard-workers vote Labor and by randomly insulting them you do your argument no justice. Lack of respect for the subject matter does not excuse poor spelling and communication skills. Tens of thousands of teachers recently went on a rally in Victoria, and it definitely didn't get disproportionate media attention. The 1-to-1 school laptop program was actually a resounding success in nation-wide implementation and in improving our education standards, it was never "free laptops for everyone". Responding to the OP, I think Labor is the best choice in the long term, given their commitment to education spending and reform. Even though Gillard isn't the most inspiring leader, she gets stuff done and steps such as the carbon tax and NBN are good examples of her ability to create infrastructure. In contrast, the Liberal party hasn't released ANY policies, giving only a half-hearted promise to return to "surplus". A lot of people need to realize that debt is not a dirty word, and that during a recession it's actually beneficial. also the Greens are great, but they're not going to get enough of a majority to make any big changes, at least not in Parliament.
I fail to see how the laptop program was a success, all it did was make the IT contractors rich (I know, I was personally involved in a few of these procurement projects). Public schools are still public schools, the fails are still fails. Rich and middle income kids still enroll in private schools, university still dilute their contents year after year to appease the new students who lack fundamentals.
|
I have always voted liberal but I don't particularly like abott however even if Rudd steps up I won't vote labor. What's to stop labor getting in and kicking Rudd out again for their real candidate. I honestly just can't trust labor. Their give give give attitude dropped us far from surplus and when they said they would deliver a surplus waited until the 11th hr to change their minds. They have back stabbed multiple independents and now the greens who backed their minority government and I haven't really felt they have done anything beneficial.
Sure NBN is nice but blowing its budget and not progressing anywhere near what they stated it would and carbon tax is a joke. Companies aren't going to reduce carbon emissions they just charge others more. Day after it was announced my company recieved letters of price increase to us as a direct relation to carbon tax it was even stated on the letterhead. So instead of them forking out the end consumer takes the hit.
The sooner labor are gone the better
|
Rudd is just incompetent, he got elected by playing the popularity card but he can't even lead his own party, why should Australia trust him to lead the country? He failed at even the basic competencies of a politician.
|
On February 20 2013 09:53 haduken wrote: Rudd is just incompetent, he got elected by playing the popularity card but he can't even lead his own party, why should Australia trust him to lead the country? He failed at even the basic competencies of a politician.
My view on it was that he was actually trying to run the country, with less emphasis on his party. Some of his party members took offence to that. I would much rather have Rudd as Labor leader who you can trust to stick to his word (as much as politicians can), than Gillard who you can't trust a word that comes out of her mouth.
I really don't have too much to say policy wise, but I know I would be much more interested in politics and much more optimistic about Parliament if we had 2 strong main parties rather then the checkered bunch we have now.
|
On February 09 2013 10:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 10:49 paralleluniverse wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/poor-returns-could-force-rethink-of-mining-tax-20130208-2e3q9.htmlA note on the poultry revenue raised by the mining tax so far. This is why it should not have been watered down, Rudd was right to push for a large mining tax. Arguments to scrap the tax because it's not raising enough revenues is completely backwards. Surely $126 million > $0. The main point to grasp is that minerals in the earth are immobile. If mining companies want to dig this dirt up from the ground, then they have no choice than to pay whatever tax the government sets. They can't offshore mining, because it's in the ground, here. If they don't dig it up, someone else eventually will. Therefore, taking into account the mild disincentive effects of tax hikes, the mining tax should be increased to squeeze every cent of revenue possible out of mining companies over the long term. Minerals are also finite and will eventually run out, so that the tax should raised as soon as possible. Lastly, the mining tax wasn't some unsolicited, revenue grabbing scheme concocted by the government. It was a key recommendation from the Henry Tax Review. Dammit parallel, why can't more Americans think as you do I've enjoyed reading this thread, though I can't contribute too much.
As a first time voter in the national elections I honestly cannot wait to finally get to be involved in politics. I always thought that the mining tax should have been implemented much earlier. As you mentioned minerals are finite and they will run out, I remember reading a while ago that the mining boom may not last as long as what was originally predicted. The mining tax is vital and it should take every dollar it can and should be invested into future industries for Australia after the mining boom runs its course.
I remember a discussion with my teacher a few years ago, that with all the minerals located in Australia, if we had the industries to process and make use of it, it would be so much more beneficial for the country. However such investment would be a long term plan and unfortunately with the current state of politics, you are locked into short term plans that please the voters now, otherwise you end up being taken out of government before you can really do anything beneficial. Of course this was from a few years ago when I was much younger, so it might be a little inaccurate nowadays, but most Australians seem to be unaware of these issues.
Also my opinion of the computer and laptop plan from the government, honestly I think that it was completely unneeded, the money could have been spent so much better in other areas. In my school before I graduated, all I saw the money going to was a bunch of computers being put into have the classrooms, yet they were used maybe 10-20% of the time. A complete waste of money from the scheme. Not to mention the plethora of other high schools which used the money for laptops for students to take home and keep, with most of the laptops barely making an improvement in the learning for students.
As much as I share a distaste of both Gilliard and Abbott I believe the majority of people who say they are simply going to do a donkey vote is ridiculous. A vote is your way of making a say in what happens, even if you dont think it makes a difference. The rights which were so hard to come by in the past are simply being taken for granted nowadays. I have so many friends from my school who will also be eligible for their first federal vote this year have become disillusioned from the world they live in that rather than taking advantage of the right to vote, they prefer to avoid the register and avoid voting due to their lack of interest and laziness.
|
On February 18 2013 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2013 21:20 k204 wrote:let me point something out for all the non australians here and im not going to try and use sentence structure cause it doesnt deserve it liberal is supported (money) by businesses and look out for their interests labor is supported (money) by the workers unions and look out for blue collar worker types when i was at uni it was the drop kicks doing political science degrees that werent ever going to have a career that discuss these things just like on this forum and so theyre families are labor supports and so are they. thats why majority posting saying labor so much better the majority of people who dont speak out and have these ridiculous quotes from pOL 101 aka everyone else that went to uni has an actual job and career and are to busy to sit here supporting a joke party with joke ideals. there current run in government was started by promising all these low socioeconomic status people free laptops for everyone... then turns out just for y9-12 at school... then turns out no funding left... then turns out no more pcs... i remember standing in line hearing these types saying oh i cant wait for my free laptop so basically the people here making labor look good... well... i just described them... now re-read their stories with open mind its the same way opinions from protests get blown out of proportion - some 'protests' of 1000 people... well 1000 people supported u, the rest of australia thats a few million didnt go out and march and dont think its an issue. Yep. And 47% of Americans pay no income taxes, are victims, feel entitled to government handouts, won't take any responsibility for their lives, and will vote for Obama no matter what. So I completely agree with your generalizations. He's not American. He said, "uni." There is no way he is an American.
|
On February 20 2013 10:13 Aeropunk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 09:53 haduken wrote: Rudd is just incompetent, he got elected by playing the popularity card but he can't even lead his own party, why should Australia trust him to lead the country? He failed at even the basic competencies of a politician.
My view on it was that he was actually trying to run the country, with less emphasis on his party. Some of his party members took offence to that. I would much rather have Rudd as Labor leader who you can trust to stick to his word (as much as politicians can), than Gillard who you can't trust a word that comes out of her mouth. I really don't have too much to say policy wise, but I know I would be much more interested in politics and much more optimistic about Parliament if we had 2 strong main parties rather then the checkered bunch we have now.
I'm not sure that's an accurate characterisation of Rudd. From what I've heard Rudd was an egomaniac who was more interested in his own popularity than actually running things. The incident where he abused a stewardess on a plane comes to mind. Labor didn't ditch Rudd because of the mining tax, they ditched him because they couldn't stand him any longer. PMs (such as Howard) endured worse crises of popularity than Rudd did and remained politically successful. The mining tax debacle was just a convenient excuse.
Unfortunately for Labor, the general public was almost completely unaware of this side to Rudd, and so the long term reaction has been a reasonable one: a loss of trust in Labor. Of course, lingering problems from the shit that went down in the NSW Labor party left a lingering poisonous taste in voters' mouths.
To be honest the problems that Federal Labor are having stem from a choice made in 2006 by the NSW LNP. They put in Peter Debnam, a far right winger as their candidate for Premier. What should have been a safe win for the LNP in the 2007 NSW election turned into a comfortable victory for Labor, because people saw Debnam as an extremist (he was also politically inept). Had the LNP put in a moderate such as O'Farrell, they probably would've won the election. As it was NSW had 4 more years of a government that they were already sick of; 4 more years for anti-Labor vitriol to build up. It showed itself in the 2011 NSW election landslide. The 2010 federal election was so tight because there was so much anti-Labor sentiment in NSW. Federal Labor will probably lose this year's election in NSW because this sentiment is yet to go away.
|
So if the Liberals win does that mean we Americans will see the return of Joe Hockey?
|
|
|
|
|