# Liberal or Labor



## twojacks28 (13 April 2006)

hi folks

just wondering what the preference is with the two major parties at the moment. give a reason why you would or wouldnt vote for one of the parties.

thanks

twojacks28


----------



## Julia (13 April 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> hi folks
> 
> just wondering what the preference is with the two major parties at the moment. give a reason why you would or wouldnt vote for one of the parties.
> 
> ...




Hello twojacks28

Definitely Liberal.  The alternative is just too awful to contemplate.  Kim Beazley is driving me nuts with his attempts to criticise everything the government does, just because some PR person has told him he needs to be more aggressive and "out there".
And don't even mention the Greens!

Julia


----------



## twojacks28 (13 April 2006)

yes i couldnt agree anymore!!!! i dont know why he is still there. his own party doesnt like him. hahaha and they have no one else. also peter costello is now the best treasurer that australias ever had. bring the debt from 90+ million down to $5 million. what a great job.


----------



## rederob (13 April 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> just wondering what the preference is with the two major parties at the moment. give a reason why you would or wouldnt vote for one of the parties.



as there is no election, i will not be voting
if there was, i would be voting for someone that had integrity
so i suppose my vote will have to be informal


----------



## Prospector (13 April 2006)

Well, I have some grave concerns about some of the values of the current Government, and their ongoing commitment to the US above all other considerations.  I resented that they called people who marched against the Iraq invasion as stupid and foolish - gosh, I saw so many well informed intelligent people in the march so how dare Howard dismiss us!

But I look at the alternative - and I just cant vote for them!  I think the thing that galls me most is the factional Union involvement, and their constant carping about business. I heard on the radio today that if Labor was elected then they would act to limit the salaries paid to CEO's of big corporations. Smart move - that will really encourage talented people to come to Australia! How can you take them seriously! 

So yes, looks like Im an informal too, but if push came to shove - well it would have to be a government that knows how to run a business, and that aint Labor!


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> as there is no election, i will not be voting
> if there was, i would be voting for someone that had integrity
> so i suppose my vote will have to be informal




ditto


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2006)

I'm not keen on either of them as far as Federal politics is concerned. Neither seems to have anything approaching a long term plan for this country in practically any area (economy, health, environment, energy (belive me when I say this will outrank health as an issue within a few years), infrastructure, national security). Everywhere I look it's just short term thinking or no thinking at all. The Greens are also guilty of short-termism as a central basis of their policies so it's not just Labor and Liberal.

On a state level I would definately vote Labor. In Tas at least, the Liberals are all about running up debt, selling everything off (including hospital medical equipment), making trust funds disappear (!) and so on. They've done it (run up debt to the point of near-bankruptcy) twice since the early 1980's and their policies don't seem to have changed.

It really says it all about the Liberals (and Greens) in Tas when the business lobby tells people to vote Labor. Business backing Labor? An uneasy partnership maybe but it beats the doom and gloom "fire sale" Liberals. At least Labor's had a go even if they have made a few mistakes along the way. 

I think Kim Beazley could do with a few tips from some of the state premiers about how to (1) run a political party and (2) run a state/country once point number 1 is sorted out. Labor needs to get business on side as they have done in Tas if they're to be a credible alternative IMO.


----------



## pete152 (14 April 2006)

Is there that much difference between them, these days?
Does not matter who you vote for, a politician still gets in!
Cheers,
Peter


----------



## bullmarket (14 April 2006)

Hi prospector



			
				Prospector said:
			
		

> Well, I have some grave concerns about some of the values of the current Government, and their ongoing commitment to the US above all other considerations.  I resented that they called people who marched against the Iraq invasion as stupid and foolish - gosh, I saw so many well informed intelligent people in the march so how dare Howard dismiss us!
> 
> But I look at the alternative - and I just cant vote for them!  I think the thing that galls me most is the factional Union involvement, and their constant carping about business. I heard on the radio today that if Labor was elected then they would act to limit the salaries paid to CEO's of big corporations. Smart move - that will really encourage talented people to come to Australia! How can you take them seriously!
> 
> So yes, looks like Im an informal too, but if push came to shove - well it would have to be a government that knows how to run a business, and that aint Labor!




you've basically summed up my view as well 

I usually vote for whoever I think is most likely going to do the better job running the country or state for at least the next term.  

Federally? - for me it's a no-brainer   Labor is still a basket case overall and so I would definitely vote Liberal if an election was held now.

State level? - here in Victoria, Doyle and his Liberal party is essentially a circus    and so I would vote Labor (Bracks) if a state election was held now. Actually we have a state election due by November this year   

Happy Easter.

bullmarket


----------



## Knobby22 (14 April 2006)

I think it's time for a change, the present government is starting to smell.

Politicians are like baby's nappies. They should be changed often.


----------



## clowboy (14 April 2006)

twojacks,

I really don't know the actual figures so you could well be right in your comments that peter costello brought debt down from 90 to 5 million but it just doesn't seem right to me.  Was it meant to be billion? Or is million correct?  Thanx

Also I think the next Budget will have a big influence on what people's thoughts on the current liberal Govt are.  I can't for the life of me understand why the are so anti-reform.  They don't nesacarily have to change every element of tax all in one go, but make a start on it and progress through it year by year.  I really think they are aproaching the whole thing in the wrong way, instead of looking at where we compare to the rest of the world try looking at where we are at and where we could be.  We have the potential to be world leaders and trend setters but instead we seem to like being sheep and in the good years we are just given an extra ration of wheat.


----------



## bullmarket (14 April 2006)

I like your analogy Knobby22    



			
				Knobby22 said:
			
		

> I think it's time for a change, the present government is starting to smell.
> 
> Politicians are like baby's nappies. They should be changed often.




I suppose what you are saying is that politicians are full of pooh   

To some extent I agree with you 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## twojacks28 (14 April 2006)

hi sorry,

It actually is 90 billion down to 5 billion, my mistake.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 April 2006)

In considering the debt issue, both sides need to be looked at. Liabilities and assets.

If you have a 300K mortgage then one way to pay it off is to sell the house and rent. Or you could partly pay it off by swapping the BMW for an old banger and so on. But to then claim that you've repaid the debt is a bit misleading (to say the least) since all you've really done is move money between your assets and liabilities. You haven't actually improved your position at all.

So in considering the 90 billion down to 5 billion debt reduction it is necessary to subtract from that 85 billion improvement the proceeds of all net asset sales, including Telstra. Do the accounting properly and it seems that at least part of the mortgage repayment has been achieved by selling the house. Not so impressive as it sounds.

And then there's that little point about the country as a whole having greater foreign liabilities than ever before. That we're running a "banana republic" Current Account deficit during a commodities boom is a worry. We're in deep trouble if commodity prices fall. Don't think foreign debts matter? Just look at what happened to the likes of Argentina and it's worth noting that the Liberals were elected in the first place with a campaign focused heavily on this issue. They haven't fixed it but to be fair, neither did Labor.

I also remember quite well the comments from both Howard and Costello in 1998, in the context of the Tasmanian state election that year, that repaying debt basically isn't possible on a net basis. They argued that you could only repay debt by selling assets, in this case the iconic jewel in the state's crown also known as the Hydro-Electric Corporation. That policy basically handed government to Labor on a plate...

8 years later and general government debt is close to zero in Tas, a small fortune has been invested in infrastructure (eg the Bass Strait ferries) whilst the Hydro has grown to become a multi-national consulting business (still based in Hobart) and is now spreading it's actual power generation operations to South Australia (already operating), China (under construction) and in the future India (office being set up now). So much for the Liberals and their doom and gloom it can't be done nonsense.

Personally, I would always prefer to vote for politicans with vision as to where we're going and leadership to get us there. Vision as to how to actually fix problems rather than shifting the blame or diverting attention. Those two criteria wipe 99% off my list of who to vote for...


----------



## rederob (14 April 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> It actually is 90 billion down to 5 billion, my mistake.



Yep
They did it with a GST yet are still trying to sell the farm (and Medicare).

On a more sobering note, apart from unnecessary labour reforms (because Australian productivity standards are already high - just like our comparative labour costs), the federal coalition has been bereft of "nation building" policies at a time when we deserve our place in the sun.
National infrastructue projects to support our extractive industries include???
Our national water policy is ???
We are tackling high fuel costs by ???
Remote Australia accesses the internet and phone services by ???
We have a free trade ageement with the USA that excludes us accessing lucrative markets that the US props up via farm subsidies.
We have a foreign affairs policy that means ???

Fortunately we have a public service second to none: Their ability to teflon coat Ministers of the Crown is exemplary.


----------



## bullmarket (14 April 2006)

Hi rederob

All valid questions I agree but since you only mention the coalition is short on nation building policies I then assume you know exactly what the Labor Party policies and plans are on the issues you raised.   

I'd be interested to see if you can spell them out for anyone interested.

For me personally, I still remember mortgage rates were around 17% and inflation around 10% under Labor and I'm not convinced Labor has policies that will ensure rates won't go back to those levels over time if they were in government.

Overall, I'm quite happy we have coalition government atm although whichever party is in power it will have its fair share of problems, scandals etc etc 

I still think our 'man of steel' and his 2IC's  are a much better leadership team overall than any of the alternatives.

Happy Easter 

bullmarket


----------



## rederob (14 April 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to see if you can spell them out for anyone interested.



Sorry, can't shed any light.
My point is about a federal government missing an opportunity, after spending many years in office.
Most polical analysts agree that the platform for Howard's first term (in a broad economic sense) was based on Keating/Hawke initiatives.

At a very personal level, I know that the traineeship and apprenticeship numbers that the federal government is always so pleased with came from significant national training reforms bedded down by Labor.  But the fruits flowed several years after, significantly as a result of innovative initiatives from my Queensland home State, and other Labor States.

We have a political dichotomy in Australia whereby folk are quite happy to vote State Labor, and federal Coalition - in a sense balancing the power.
It won't last forever, but makes an interesting case study for political scientists the longer it lasts.

I hope a woman stands as the Leader of the Opposition at the next election - be it Julia whatsitsname, or some other.  In fact I wish it were Natasha (if only she could cope with the antics of lecherous laborious men with excessive egos, and brains neatly tucked into their Y-fronts).


----------



## wayneL (14 April 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> For me personally, I still remember mortgage rates were around 17% and inflation around 10% under Labor and I'm not convinced Labor has policies that will ensure rates won't go back to those levels over time if they were in government.




This actually has little to do with who is in power, and more to do with what the  rest of the world is doing... or more accurately, what the US Federal reserve is doing.


----------



## bullmarket (14 April 2006)

*Hi wayne*

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Sure, our destiny is influenced to some extent by the US and other major global economies but I'm not convinced our government policies have no significant influence on our economic destiny as you imply.  _Imo, the coalition has by far superior skills in economic management atm than Labor or any of the other alternatives._

I'm scratching my head (amongst other parts of my anatomy ) to come up with any period in history where mortgage rates were around 17% and inflation around 10% under a coalition government and I can't come up with one - can you? 


*hi rederob * 

ok thanks  - I'm not sure what Labor's policies are on those issues either and I'm not sure even they are atm 


Happy Easter 

bullmarket


----------



## wayneL (14 April 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> *Hi wayne*
> 
> I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Sure, our destiny is influenced to some extent by the US and other major global economies but I'm not convinced our government policies have no significant influence on our economic destiny as you imply.  _Imo, the coalition has by far superior skills in economic management atm than Labor or any of the other alternatives._
> 
> ...




One would presume the coalition to have superior eco skills, and that indeed has usually been the case. But wasn't Keating the "greatest treasurer in the world"? (excuse me while I go throw up)

We shall soon about interest rates, as bonds head down in the US.... stay tuned!


----------



## rederob (14 April 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> One would presume the coalition to have superior eco skills, and that indeed has usually been the case.



Howard was arguably the worst post-war federal Treasurer, under Malcolm  Fraser's stewardship. Fraser's economic credentials were nothing to write home about.
Apart from the Whitlam years, labor's post-war economic performance in  government have been exemplarary.
So bad was Menzies initially that he passed the batten to Forde (Country Party) in 1941, and Fadden was defeated on the floor of the House several months later by Curtin.
When Menzies was returned to power in 1949 the nation rode on the the sheeps back till the 60s.  Menzies is mostly remembered for how long he remained in office, rather than anything he achieved (the Snowy Mountain Scheme was conceived under Labor and completed under Labor). 
Post Menzies only McMahon had a clue economically and he played second fiddle to his wife.
The notion that the Coalition has better economic credentials than Labor  has a 3-year window in the period from 1939 - not very convincing.


----------



## Broadside (14 April 2006)

rederob the State Labor govts economic management especially in the 1980s has probably given Federal ALP a bum rap....in answer to the original post I would vote Liberal (and usually do) at the moment the Opposition is a rabble which is not good for the country regardless of political preferences.

I think Costello has done a fine job guiding us safely through many crises - eg Asian financial crisis of late 1990s, and slump after September 11, and has done well to reduce the government's debt.  But the government's debt was the size of a gnat on the elephant's rump of our private national debt....what has the Coalition done to boost national savings and channel our funds into productive assets rather than residential property?  We run massive current account deficits month after month financed by selling off long term strategic assets or going into hoc with China et al.  One day those debts will be called in.

What has the government done to boost R&D and innovation, it bleeds dry CSIRO and other research organisations and politicizes them+ R&D and developing intellectual property is important for our future standard of living, we cannot always rely on digging more out of the ground, yet science is treated as a whipping boy in successive federal (and state) budgets.

I will vote the Coalition despite their astounding arrogance and cynicism, misleading the electorate or just treating us with contempt, but the Coalition can be thankful the alternative is just not viable at the moment.  I look forward to a changing of the guard within the government, I think Costello will make a fine PM.


----------



## twojacks28 (14 April 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Yep
> They did it with a GST yet are still trying to sell the farm (and Medicare).
> 
> On a more sobering note, apart from unnecessary labour reforms (because Australian productivity standards are already high - just like our comparative labour costs), the federal coalition has been bereft of "nation building" policies at a time when we deserve our place in the sun.
> ...






I don't understand why people bag the GST. it isnt a bad thing all peter did was consolidate all taxes into one tax. it makes it more easy to understand and even cut out some taxes which we had. he also has lowered the tax rates oon shares. now we are all happy with that arent we?


----------



## rederob (14 April 2006)

I must correct my statement about Forde, above, as it was clearly Fadden I meant that took the reins from Menzies in 1941.
Forde served only 8 days before handing over to Ben Chifley in July 1845.  Though Forde served the shortest period of any PM, when he died at age 92 he was also the longest lived - perhaps suggesting that highest office and longevity are negatively correlated?


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> For me personally, I still remember mortgage rates were around 17% and inflation around 10% under Labor and I'm not convinced Labor has policies that will ensure rates won't go back to those levels over time if they were in government.



Interest rates are ultimately set by markets rather than governments. 

That said, have you done the maths on this popular Coalition claim about low interest rates? A combination of low rates and low inflation is the worst possible combination for home buyers.

Why? Because with low interest rates you'll pay an absolute fortune for the house, your deposit being a mere drop in the ocean. A recent study (published 2006) from international consultants Demographia ranks Sydney as the 7th LEAST affordable housing market in the countries studied (Australia, USA, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK - 99 cities in total). Even Hobart comes in 15th.

Low interest rates have not helped home buyers, to the contrary and the evidence backs it up. Buying an average house, once considered a right even with high interest rates, is now out of reach even for many average income earners.

Compounding the problem is low inflation meaning that, unlike in the past, the massive debts required to purchase a property are not eroded by wage rises but rather, must be paid back the hard way over many years. When household income is $61,000 and the house costs $520,000 (Sydney) the last thing you want is low inflation meaning that you have to pay the mortgage with, at best, a slowly rising income.

But I don't blame Howard. As I said, his government has basically nothing to do with interest rates. They are small fish compared to the central banks and bond markets. At most, the Australian Government can influence the overall economy and trade position (the latter being something of a disaster now just as it was under Labor) and the gap between overseas and Australian interest rates. But they don't have actual control, at least not in the long term, by any means. As Howard will likely find out, it's not wise to claim credit for things that you have little control over, especially when they start moving against you as seems to be happening right now (the upwards trend in world interest rates). Rising rates, low inflation and ridiculously high mortgages are not a good combination...


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 April 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> I don't understand why people bag the GST. it isnt a bad thing all peter did was consolidate all taxes into one tax. it makes it more easy to understand and even cut out some taxes which we had. he also has lowered the tax rates oon shares. now we are all happy with that arent we?



The GST certainly gets rid of quite a few distortions that the old multi-rate taxing system had so I don't have a problem with it.

Some of the outcomes of the old system were somewhat perverse. For example you paid tax on a heat pump (which saves energy) but no tax on the electricity you otherwise wasted. A ridiculous situation given greenhouse etc. So there's even a "green" side to the GST.

As for the tax on shares, I'm a little bit cynical that the real intent is to discourage "mum and dad" investors from selling either shares or investment property and thus keep the market pumped up. You don't get the tax reduction if you hold the investment for less than 12 months which IMO encourages the "buy and hold" approach rather than active trading thus removing a few sellers from the market during a slump. Stability maybe but a distortion nonetheless and it provides a help for professional investors (good high earning Coalition voters   ) to sell with the masses happy to stay holding.


----------



## rederob (15 April 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> I don't understand why people bag the GST. it isnt a bad thing all peter did was consolidate all taxes into one tax. it makes it more easy to understand and even cut out some taxes which we had. he also has lowered the tax rates oon shares. now we are all happy with that arent we?



A principal aim of the GST was to ensure there was no "black economy" avoiding taxes.
Since the GST was introduced the number of people asking to be paid cash has amazed me.
Government did not have to create a GST to equalise the tax rates - they had this power without it.
The GST has turned all businesses into tax collectors, thereby saving them a lot of work.
States still have rights to tax, and the GST has slowly removed some of these: Had the Commonwealth been smarter with its tax distribution to States they would all play ball, but the Commonwealth still prefers to play politics.
My children now have to pay a GST on sports club fees, and the Canteen profits are reduced by GST payments - profits which we use to help reduce the fees they pay in the first place.
The work I do attracts a GST because I am engaged under a contract. If the companies I work to paid me as a casual there would be no GST payment involved.
The GST costs me significantly on compliance costs that I never incurred prior to a GST.
The fact that we have got used to it always being there does not mean it is a good tax!


----------



## bullmarket (15 April 2006)

Hi Smurf1976

yes I agree that interest rates are ultimately set by markets, Reserve Banks or whatever and not the government 

But there is no way you're going to convince me that the thinking behind the markets' and RBA's decisions re interest rates is not influenced by the consequences of *government policies * that have been put in place to either stimulate or slow down an economy by whatever means.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to persuade anyone to change the way they vote because to be honest, for me personally at this stage of my life it doesn't really matter who is in government.  My earlier posts were just explaining how I would vote now and the reasons behind it  and I'm not going to enter into a potential endless loop of chatroom tennis 'discussing' the pros and cons of Liberal v Labor today  : 

Happy Easter

bullmarket


----------



## anon (16 April 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Interest rates are ultimately set by markets rather than governments.
> 
> That said, have you done the maths on this popular Coalition claim about low interest rates? A combination of low rates and low inflation is the worst possible combination for home buyers.
> 
> ...




Back in 1989 (just before the Recession we had to have) my wife and I did a daily trip of about five to six km's during which we used to count numbers of houses for sale. This was a period of double digit inflation, whilst the interest rates were about 12%. The usual count of houses for sale was about half a dozen. As the inflation kept going upwards Hawke and Keating jacked the interest rates up, business rates hitting upwards of 24%. Immediately that count of houses for sale on that same trip went up to over 26. 

The high interest / high inflation regime hurt those that bought houses for owner occupation or as investment. Investors lost interest in houses and earned more just by putting their money on fixed deposits.


The other aspect of high interest rates is the effect they have on businesses. During the above period many businesses went bankrupt and lot of people lost their jobs. There were reports in the media that many sacked workers didn't have the heart to tell their families that they lost jobs. They would leave home in the morning and spend their days wondering around, sitting on the park benches.. 

Some time later Bob Hawke apologised to Australia for what his government had done. Keating hadn't.


I am not convinced that higher interest rates and higher inflation are good for the nation. They may be good for investors, but certainly not for people starting families.


anon


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 April 2006)

Agreed absolutely that high interest rates are a disaster for _existing_ house buyers with a large mortgage at a variable rate. I do not wish to see ordinary families forced to sell their homes due to such a situation but IMO it is a foreseeable outcome given that many recent home buyers have taken on very large debts relative to their income and in view of the global trend towards higher interest rates.

It is no secret that a great many, if not most, first home buyers start with the question "how much can I borrow?". Indeed that is the advice given by commentators, real estate agents and banks. If interest rates are near a peak to start with then this poses little risk provided that income is at least maintained in nominal terms. If inflation is also high then rapidly rising income quickly erodes the _real_ value of the debt and the mortgage repayment becomes a relatively trivial expense. This has been the experience of many of the parents of recent first home buyers (and others of similar age) and no doubt explains the belief that "you can't go wrong with property". They bought when both rates and inflation were high and watched as the value of their debt virtually disappeared due to wage inflation and the value of their property increased accordingly. They couldn't lose.

But with low interest rates and relatively low _wage_ inflation the situation is very different. Even a slight rise in interest rates inflicts real pain on those heavily in debt. And with relatively slow income growth the mortgage remains a major expense for many years. In the event that interest rates meaningfully rise, and even 0.25% is a substantial rise when coming from a low base, such borrowers can find themselves in real trouble. 

The situation as it stands now is that recent first home buyers typically have massive debt relative to their income. Typical house prices are in the order of 6.5 times household income in most Australian cities (source Demographia report 2006). This ratio has risen sharply in recent times enabled by lenders' willingness to lend at high income multiples in a low interest rate environment. This is a tolerable situation only whilst interest rates do not rise faster than incomes. Just one 0.25% rise on a 7% mortgage rate is a 3.5% rise in actual interest costs - around 1 years wage growth. 

So it is a question of risk. If you have any one expense taking a large portion of your income then you are seriously exposed in the event that that expense rises relative to your income. That applies whether the expense is a mortgage, petrol, medical costs, drug addiction or whatever. If you spend 1% of your income on something then price movements are of little concern. But buying an average house on an average income (or a cheaper house on a lower income) with a 10% typical first home buyer's deposit already takes about 40% of household income just to pay the interest (calculated from the Demographia report figures). Add in all fixed costs such as rates, insurance, food, utilities, transport and so on (not to mention actually repaying the debt) and it doesn't take much of a rise in interest rates to completely screw the household finances.

What's this got to do with Liberal or Labor? Not a lot given that it is the market which created the situation but IMO Howard's repeated promise of low interest rates has encouraged ordinary Australians, many of whom have little knowledge on financial matters, to take on unnecessarily large risks both through very large borrowings and opting to not fix the interest rate on the assumption that rates will never be much above where they are now, or at least not by more than 0.25% a year in line with income growth. A dangerous gamble with the homes of ordinary people IMO that, apart from political gain, there has been no reason to take. Mr Howard could equally have reminded people of past experiences with high interest rates and suggested that fixed rate mortgages would be a sensible choice for anyone borrowing a large amount. But doing so would have removed the political usefulness and credibility of promising ongoing low interest rates and thus removed a key plank of the Coalition's re-election strategy.

In effect, the promise of low interest rates exchanged the risk of the government not being re-elected for the risk of financial difficulties for ordinary people. That interest rates are a mainstream issue and credibly promising to keep them low is a clear vote winner is proof enough IMO that there are a sufficient number of voters with large debts at variable rates to justify my concern as to the consequences of this ultimately unnecessary gamble. That said, I doubt that Labor would have done any differently as politicans of all persuasions will usually take advantage of whatever opportunities for political gain present themselves at the time.

Agreed that high interest rate are bad news for most businesses (though inflation can be profitable depending on the nature of the business). My point is more about the political aspects (given the thread title) and they're overwhelmingly focused (by the politicians) on home buyers with large mortgages at variable rates. It would be a nice change to hear a bit more about the needs of productive enterprise from our "leaders". Just imagine if all that borrowed money had been channeled into business targeting export markets rather than inflating domestic asset prices. We'd be a lot better off as a nation but politically it's harder to sell due to lack of short term gains for voters.


----------



## bullmarket (17 April 2006)

Hi smurf1976

I agree that inflation reduces the debt:equity ratio in a family home due to the rising value of the home *but it doesn't actually reduce the debt.* 

The monthly or whatever payments still remain the same and those just barely making the 17% interest payments back in the late 80's still had to come up with the repayments.  Watching their home values rise certainly would have helped put a light at the end of the tunnel though  

There were a lot of people back in the 80's kept out of home ownership because they couldn't afford the 17% interest.

I prefer low interest rates and low inflation to high interest rates and high inflation any day 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 April 2006)

Without rapidly increasing nominal income, you are absolutely at the mercy of interest rates as far as being able to meet future loan repayments. That so many are in this exact situation is _very_ convenient as a means by which a government can do virtually anything and still be re-elected provided that they maintain credibility on the interest rates issue. 

Get them up to their eyeballs in debt, convince them that fixed rates are a waste of time and then do as you wish because they will not, can not, afford to argue with the master who promises cheap credit. Just like a drug addict is at the mercy of their dealer.


----------



## bullmarket (17 April 2006)

Hi smurf1976



			
				Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Without rapidly increasing nominal income, you are absolutely at the mercy of interest rates as far as being able to meet future loan repayments........................




I think that is a far too general comment.

Imo that might only be the case where people have borrowed to the eye-balls at variable rates and either can't or won't refinance.

I have always advised when taking out a loan especially at a variable rate to build in at least a 1-2% buffer into the current interest rates when calculating the maximum you can borrow.  If you don't you are taking a punt on interest rates not going up significantly and so the consequences of such a punt are at your own peril 

People also have the option to take out fixed interest rate or a fixed/variable combo to suit their situations. Sure, fixed rates might be a little higher initially but at least your repayments are fixed for the duration of the fixed rate.

Basically the ease with which borrowers end up repaying loans boils down to thorough planning for different potential scenarios and number crunching *prior to taking out the loan * and the number crunching involved is not rocket science 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## bullmarket (17 April 2006)

and I think we are drifting :topic now 

from the original liberal v labor theme

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## StockyBailx (17 April 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> hi folks
> 
> just wondering what the preference is with the two major parties at the moment. give a reason why you would or wouldnt vote for one of the parties.
> 
> ...



 *OOOOH'* How can anyone even contemplate electing anyone or anything in the present government.* IT SUX,* The whole system is currupt and built on the basis of dramma queens and commonwealth consperitors. That is why I don't enjoy living in Australia and I've been hear all my life. Not my real choice of a second brief of wind!

Don't vote Labour thier all Boogn's
Don't vote Liberal thier all Drama queens/ homo's  :swear: 
Don't vote National or greens thier all gretens working for Labour and Liberal, working hard to keep the pair looking good when  it all stuffs up!

 Personally sack the whole lot of them, bring in a whole new body and purpuse call it the Rebublician Party running entotally on true Australian views and the Australian people*. Not* the Commonwealth Republic. And just for that note, change the Australian title and Flag *(Burn it)* to be ride of the present commonwealth view and all it's homo's, and boogn's.

Create a patition!

Thank-you very much!   

*STOCK'ie'BAILZ
*


----------



## stiger (17 April 2006)

You are kidding .GREED IS GOOD> ask alexander and mark.


----------



## anon (17 April 2006)

StockyBailz said:
			
		

> *OOOOH'* How can anyone even contemplate electing anyone or anything in the present government.* IT SUX,* The whole system is currupt and built on the basis of dramma queens and commonwealth consperitors. That is why I don't enjoy living in Australia and I've been hear all my life. Not my real choice of a second brief of wind!
> 
> Don't vote Labour thier all Boogn's
> Don't vote Liberal thier all Drama queens/ homo's  :swear:
> ...





I didn't think I'd see this, but at last here is someone with a lot of common sense. Yes indeed, let's sack the bloody lot of them and get someone who is intelligent and would be dedicated to promoting all what we stand for. Seeing we are not racist anymore let's go out to the world and hire or highjack some of the outstanding ex-leaders and install them as our supreme directors of public purse and public morals.

Boris Yeltzin is still about, I believe, and he might even jump at the opportunity to get away from freezing Moscow. He might even get to like our beer. Just think of the advertizing value - "why the bloody hell aren't you drinking Foster's" sort of thing. 

If Boris is not prepared to come over then there is Jaque Chirac who will soon be out of a job. He might be a little bit harder to convince to be our next great leader, and all because he hates the English language.

With luck Saddam Hussein might get off with a light sentence and will be looking for a job consistent with his experience. We could probably get to like him.

Should Saddam be unlucky we could try for an ayatolla from Iran. He might enjoy changing our morals back a few centuries.


Well, it's all a pipedream. The reality is that we are one of the best countries in the world. Let's not stuff it up.


anon


----------



## twojacks28 (24 April 2006)

hahaha that is a stupid thing to say "sack them all"!!!! the current government is doing a fine job with the country as it is. and if you have a problem with that then vote against them. now it seems to me you must be in a small minority as the government has been relected several times. it is also interesting to add that the labor party in melbourne has just copied the liberal governments policy on revealing where the speed cameras are! cant they come up without stealing policies from other parties!

look at this for an interesting read. And no it isnt made up!

http://www.bracksbrokenpromises.com.au


----------



## Mofra (25 April 2006)

StockyBailz said:
			
		

> *OOOOH'* How can anyone even contemplate electing anyone or anything in the present government.* IT SUX,* The whole system is currupt and built on the basis of dramma queens and commonwealth consperitors. That is why I don't enjoy living in Australia and I've been hear all my life. Not my real choice of a second brief of wind!
> 
> Don't vote Labour thier all Boogn's
> Don't vote Liberal thier all Drama queens/ homo's  :swear:
> ...



Exactly how much rum did you consume before typing that? 
Are boogn's the same as bogans? Why are you so homophobic? If you don't like Australia, why are you still here?
What on earth does _"Not my real choice of a second brief of wind!"_mean?

That is one post that raises more questions than answers.


FWIW I only vote for a minor party in the senate as I loathe the idea of one of the major parties having the balance of power in the senate. Vote independant in the house of reps, but only after checking their preferences of course


----------



## wayneL (25 April 2006)

Slightly off topic. but how's this for world class diplomacy...








 ROTFLMAO


----------



## StockyBailx (25 April 2006)

Mofra said:
			
		

> Exactly how much rum did you consume before typing that?
> Are boogn's the same as bogans? Why are you so homophobic? If you don't like Australia, why are you still here?
> What on earth does _"Not my real choice of a second brief of wind!"_mean?
> 
> ...




*Hi Mofra, and Twojacks28*

 I hope you didn't take my post the wrong way. I was just being sincere and mean't what I siad in a good way.
Personaly and honestly I had none to drink except 2 light beers, the present government and those involved furiate me it lives in the past and not the present, it deviates around the subject and not straight to it, living on Old and mouldy values, to enrich thier commie pockets, chocking the system buy collecting the dirt sediment and making Australia the lie it is today.

What are Bogans? Boogn's; stands for indigines rubbish and no I'm not predudise in any way. And no I'm not homophobic, if a person is that way inclinded, I say thats there problem. unlike  the present government i only wouldn't want thier problems influancing me in any way.
The only reason why I'm here in Australia is because I was born here. My parents arise from Ireland and Germany. I'- if I could leave this sess pit I would, but where would I go, I mean seeming as the Unmoral values of England and the U.S.A have infested the world I don't think it would be much different.

Like I was saying not exactly my chioce of a second breif of wind. What that means is that if Australia was at a republician state of mined people will learn the true values of LOVE & HATE! and the country could then breath in its natural state. -And Don't you try and tell me that it is.
But No every things got to lie and go around the facts of life. In other words where do you people get off saying things like; For e.g " Or thats not how the Queen would of liked it or done it, lets change these facts and do it her way, at least then we can be re-assured" Well NO THANKS go and get **** and why would you give 2 ** about someone else's apiniun and values when your talking about the facts of life. Your facts of life not the governments POXIE interest.
You see thier is no second wind were made to choke and suffer based on unmorel grounds and inderpendance. Hey where's my second wind everything stinks like combustion. Real honest fresh air with smarts,- Aussie government I dont think so.

Take that picture of President Bush for intance; Hey who's he think he is, the worlds apressa. i mean he's culture values arise from the new English state and as far as he is conserned every country sux and its not as good as Americia's, there all threats, shouldn,t speek a second lanuage to intise the original. -Anyway that bloke sucks, and before he starts bad mouthing or giving judgment on others he needs to look in the mirror, for all his anwers on hipagrites.

Or yer and also Twojacks28, thats your apinion and it really must mean alot to you if your into that sorta thing. I still say "sack the lot of them" ther've had  or got the Jack!

Should of been a square solar system or planet, at least then you may not have to put up with the problems of others.- (Sorry to hear about it!)

All the Best!

STOCK'ieiBAILZ

-----A Penny a day keeps the doctor away-----


----------



## twojacks28 (25 April 2006)

ok whatever stockblitz. also mofra the problem with the independents are they have only a small focus on the issues that concern them. thats why they will never become the government as the is involves many issues which they cant handle. thats the problem they dont have a good enough understanding of the rest of the issues and most independents are former liberal or labor party members that were kicked out!!!


----------



## tarnor (25 April 2006)

i'm still utterly repulsed by our commitment to the war.. But i think labour wouldn't be much better.. that one issue would sway me over concern for various domestic stuff because its affecting a lot more people from a humanitarian perspective..


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 April 2006)

Just to throw a spanner in the works and bring another party into this...

It seems that the long anticipated split in the environment movement could be underway. Well, at least that's what the Australian Government is trying to do judging by recent actions.

For those not aware, a second wind farm proposal looks to be in trouble now on account of a decision by the government. The problem? It's not threatening any endangered species or anything like that but apparently a few locals might not like it. So the solution is don't build it. (I'll have to remember this approach come tax time - I don't like paying it so I guess it's OK to just not pay. Mustn't upset anyone after all).

Anyway, what this comes down to (apart from the politics) is the reality that in practice many "environmental" debates are not about the environment versus development as is often assumed to be the case but rather, about sustainability versus conservation. The two are often mutually exclusive and that is particularly so where energy is concerned.

There's no chance whatsoever that we're going to meet greenhouse gas emission targets without an awful lot of renewable energy development, a point many seem to overlook. The nuclear debate is smiliarly about whether or not to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No uranium, wind farms, hydro dams or whatever = more greenhouse gas emissions.

Nothing's certain but I've been expecting this point to be reached for quite a while now and it seems we could be there. Politically, the Greens might find serious troubles if this continues. After all, many of their policies are mutually exclusive due to the reality of conservation versus sustainability. 

For example, dams on wild rivers, wood chipping and wind farms are all relatively sustainable but absolutely at odds with conservation and are all opposed by the Greens despite representing some of the key solutions to problems such as global warming which the Greens claim to want stopped. In contrast, tourism is an absolutely unsustainable industry heavily tied to cheap petroleum and global warming. But it fits nicely with conservation and is supported by the Greens despite being at odds with many of their other policies.

I could be wrong but I do get the feeling that the Greens are going to find somewhat more scrutiny over their mutually exclusive policies. They could foreseeably end up much the same as the Democrats if they lost sufficient credibility on environmental issues. They have, after all, worked wonders for the oil and gas industries. A point they may not like too many to become aware of.


----------



## Julia (25 April 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic. but how's this for world class diplomacy...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Great photo and accompanying comment, Wayne.

And he still can't pronounce "nuclear" for heaven's sake!

Julia


----------



## StockyBailx (26 April 2006)

'lets not get to excited'. But seeming as we can't really just sack'em, even thou it is what the country needs. Going with Smurf1976's values and particular important agenders,and signing on a new party (Republican) Combining all 4,5 party's as one, and of coarse buy sacking all the laboured liberals and greens found incompatent and  commonwealth conspiraters, (All). Forming the One party, Republician and then branching of  with  inderpendance of all areas to form state and national governend body's to greate a True Australian Government'. That way we can all get involved and they won't be able to go around the subject, only striaght forward and into the facts, not been able to defeat the purpuse of a correct decision, with all the lee way that this present commonwealth is entitled with the constant bitching and bicary of the Labour and Libral government we have to day.
Policys; what goods a policy with out a honest commitment, or faithful ledger?
Answer: Decete.

  Stock'ie'Bailz


----------



## wayneL (26 April 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Great photo and accompanying comment, Wayne.
> 
> And he still can't pronounce "nuclear" for heaven's sake!
> 
> Julia




Interesting article about the vist here: (sorry, off topic again  )

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD26Ad01.html



> The US forgets its manners
> By Todd Crowell
> 
> HUA HIN, Thailand - Considering how much time and effort was spent on the ceremonial details of Chinese President Hu Jintao's official visit to Washington last week, it is hard to understand how things could have gotten fouled up so badly.
> ...


----------



## Prospector (26 April 2006)

Let's start a Bush Gaffe thread - seriously off this topic now, but am betting it would become the longest thread in this forum - so much ammo


----------



## twojacks28 (26 April 2006)

tarnor said:
			
		

> i'm still utterly repulsed by our commitment to the war.. But i think labour wouldn't be much better.. that one issue would sway me over concern for various domestic stuff because its affecting a lot more people from a humanitarian perspective..





the war wasnt a bad decision.. we have stopped a horrible dictator that killed tens of thousands of people and we are installing democracy into a country where it hasnt been seen for a long time. Also any other party that was in government when the decision was made would have made the same decision and sent our troops over aswell!


----------



## wayneL (26 April 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> .. we have stopped a horrible dictator that killed tens of thousands of people and we are installing democracy into a country where it hasnt been seen for a long time...




And we do this by killing hundreds of thousands?

Where are we in regards to Zimbabwe, Rwanda and a host of other countries where fair dinkum genocide is occuring?

Democracy? How 'bout civil war?

...and where's the WMD's?

Sorry, that's just an artificial politcal construct you've fallen hook, line & sinker for.

MY apologies for the tone, but honestly, you need to open your eyes.


----------



## RichKid (26 April 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> the war wasnt a bad decision.. we have stopped a horrible dictator that killed tens of thousands of people and we are installing democracy into a country where it hasnt been seen for a long time...




I hope they don't try to 'install' democracy like that anywhere else, violence is damn too expensive in lives and money and everything else...out of the frying pan and into the fire, thank you Uncle Sam.


----------



## twojacks28 (26 April 2006)

No your right richkid we should of let him kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. That would be much cheaper for us.


----------



## bullmarket (26 April 2006)

:iagree: with the RichKid 

I'm not convinced the world is a better let alone a safer place now after Iraq than it would have been had we not invaded Iraq.....ie...I'm not convinced the train bombings in Spain, the London bombings and the Bali bombings would have happened anyway had we not invaded Iraq.

And a huge disappointment and major reason for loss of trust in US intelligence and motives, for me at least, is that I find it very hard to believe that the CIA didn't know the info re WMD's they passed on to the US gov't to justify invading Iraq wasn't at best doubtful and at the worst blatant lies.

I'm now waiting to see what fairy tale they will come up with to justify invading Iran  

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## twojacks28 (26 April 2006)

the iraq invasion did not start the london bombings, bali bombings etc. they were there before we invaded iraq and now bin laden uses them as a reason to attack america and other countries. they believe in the death of all westerners anyway! they use the invasion as a scapegoat for there horrible acts! :swear:


----------



## bullmarket (26 April 2006)

hi 2jacks28

I understand what you are saying and agree in principle.

The point I was trying to make is that I'm not convinced the frequency and number of attacks on western countries since March 2003 would have been as high had we not invaded Iraq.  

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Prospector (26 April 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> And we do this by killing hundreds of thousands?
> 
> Where are we in regards to Zimbabwe, Rwanda and a host of other countries where fair dinkum genocide is occuring?
> 
> ...





Absolutely, and totally agree with you


----------



## bullmarket (26 April 2006)

> Originally Posted by wayneL
> And we do this by killing hundreds of thousands?
> 
> Where are we in regards to Zimbabwe, Rwanda and a host of other countries where fair dinkum genocide is occuring?
> ...




*and don't forget what we and the rest of the world is allowing to go on in SUDAN*   :swear:


----------



## twojacks28 (26 April 2006)

thankyouf or tha insight but my eyes are open and i havent fallen for hook line and sinker i no excatly what is going in. have you ever thought that we cant be helping everyone at once. and maybe if the UN did something for once there wouldnt be such a big problem.


----------



## MalteseBull (26 April 2006)

LIBERAL!!

Under Liberals Ideologies - the rich get richer etc...

under labour they all give into dole bludgers and people who don't want to work or seek out gain


----------



## Prospector (26 April 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> thankyouf or tha insight but my eyes are open and i havent fallen for hook line and sinker i no excatly what is going in. have you ever thought that we cant be helping everyone at once. and maybe if the UN did something for once there wouldnt be such a big problem.





True, but it seems we help those with OIL just a little faster than the rest!


----------



## twojacks28 (26 April 2006)

not true many of those countries have lots of resources including oil except with iraq it had been a long problem which needed resolving. australia doesnt have the forces to help everyone. one step at a time.


----------



## Bobby (26 April 2006)

Seeing as it going all of topic now, I'll ask this question :

Do you think the West should stop Iran from their nuclear ambitions ?.

Bob.


----------



## twojacks28 (26 April 2006)

lets keep it on topic bobby. but yes i do they will kill us all   i hope im wrong


----------



## rederob (26 April 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Seeing as it going all of topic now, I'll ask this question :
> 
> Do you think the West should stop Iran from their nuclear ambitions ?.
> 
> Bob.



They say their nuclear ambitions are ONLY in relation to generating electric power.
Now Bush never believed Saddam, and was wrong, and Saddam was not a nice a chap, so Bush really was right.
In that context, Bush can't go wrong, can he!


----------



## Bobby (26 April 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> They say their nuclear ambitions are ONLY in relation to generating electric power.
> Now Bush never believed Saddam, and was wrong, and Saddam was not a nice a chap, so Bush really was right.
> In that context, Bush can't go wrong, can he!




But old chap what do you think should be done regarding Iran ?.
Its ok to state your opinion.

Bob.


----------



## rederob (26 April 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> But old chap what do you think should be done regarding Iran ?.
> Its ok to state your opinion.
> 
> Bob.



Bob
I think if we (ie US) does anything about Iran our share market will go gangbusters.
We need to do things in many other countries before even thinking of Iran: Try Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan or Zimbabwe - different issues, but real problems.  In any case I would put China so far ahead of Iran as a threat that Iran is not even on the scales.
A sense of proportion goes a long way.
Remember the only nation that ever used the "bomb" in warfare was the US - against a hapless Japan on its last legs (it's an instructive read to discover what the key military decision makers thought at the time and in retrospect about what they did).
I am not sure what Iran would do with a "bomb" as they could never threaten the UK, US or Australia unless they have access to ICBMs, which they do not.
The phrase "sabre rattling" comes to mind: Iran is rattling and the US is rattled!


----------



## Bobby (26 April 2006)

Rederob,

You stated that they ( Iran ) don't have any ICBMs, so what?.
Nuclear bombs can be made the size of a suitcase & be delivered in a boot of a car !.

Bob.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 April 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Bob
> I think if we (ie US) does anything about Iran our share market will go gangbusters.
> We need to do things in many other countries before even thinking of Iran: Try Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan or Zimbabwe - different issues, but real problems.  In any case I would put China so far ahead of Iran as a threat that Iran is not even on the scales.
> A sense of proportion goes a long way.
> ...




A rather naive response I think.

Iran has explicitly advocated the destruction of Israel.

Iran and North Korea share technology - ICBMs are in North Korea!


----------



## rederob (27 April 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> A rather naive response I think.
> 
> Iran has explicitly advocated the destruction of Israel.
> 
> Iran and North Korea share technology - ICBMs are in North Korea!



Snake
When it comes to naive, I trust your judgement.
Naive is where you give somebody something, encourage them use it , tell them they can't anymore, and then attack them because you don't believe they haven't got it anymore.
From what I have read of your posts to date, the idea of "pre-emtive strikes" is quite justifiable.
In pure legal terms it remains a recipe for disaster.
In moral terms it implies the aggressor is always right, irrespective of any subsequent proven wrongdoing.
More importantly, it implies an arrogance on behalf of the holder of such a view, as the *truth * has no real value, and the views of  the counterparty must always be irrelevant or dishonest.
So much for naivety.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Rederob,
> 
> You stated that they ( Iran ) don't have any ICBMs, so what?.
> Nuclear bombs can be made the size of a suitcase & be delivered in a boot of a car !.
> ...



Not true Bob.
So called "dirty bombs" fit your description.
There is nothing stopping any terrorist today from delivering a dirty bomb as it just requires a nuclear contaminant to be mixed with an explosive such as cemtex or similar.  The explosive event would be minor - the damage is done by contiminating the area where the detonation occurred.  The amount of nuclear material unaccounted for after the Soviet Union disintegrated remains a greater cause for concern than Iran's sabre rattling.
I really believe that people who do not understand what they are talking about are better off doing some research than posting claims that do them a disservice.  That way we can have a more informaed debate about something that has nothing to do with liberal or labor.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> A rather naive response I think.
> 
> Iran has explicitly advocated the destruction of Israel.
> 
> Iran and North Korea share technology - ICBMs are in North Korea!



The logic sequence works like this:

George Bush is a man.
Men kill people.
George Bush Jr kills people.

The difference probably is better put by saying Snake is a man. 
Men kill people.
Snake kills people.

Spot the difference?

Yes, George Bush, as Commander in Chief, has killed thousands of people.


----------



## bullmarket (27 April 2006)

:iagree: rederob

much more important issues with much higher priorities for immediate solutions than Iran around the globe atm as you and others have highlighted.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Knobby22 (27 April 2006)

China isn't a threat,Rederob.
You are watching too much US Fox.

China has done much for the Aussie economy.
The US on the other hand is a huge leach, sucking our wealth. I still can't believe how bad the "free trade policy" is to Australia.


----------



## Prospector (27 April 2006)

Re the Free Trade Policy - the Red Cross have a letter on their Website stating that because of the new Trade policy the Contract to provide Blood services (eg sorting the Plasma from the platelets etc etc) currently done in Australia by CSL will now have to be offered to US companies.  So the blood you donate may end up in the US, be processed, and come back to Australia.

Which clever Johnny thought of that one!


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 April 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> The logic sequence works like this:
> 
> George Bush is a man.
> Men kill people.
> ...





Moderators,

This is inflammatory and states that I kill people.


----------



## visual (27 April 2006)

Snake,
what are you waiting for,strike him,hope you are deadly


----------



## Prospector (27 April 2006)

Gosh, I'd be more worried he is comparing you with George W Bush


----------



## Bobby (27 April 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Not true Bob.
> So called "dirty bombs" fit your description.
> There is nothing stopping any terrorist today from delivering a dirty bomb as it just requires a nuclear contaminant to be mixed with an explosive such as cemtex or similar.  The explosive event would be minor - the damage is done by contiminating the area where the detonation occurred.  The amount of nuclear material unaccounted for after the Soviet Union disintegrated remains a greater cause for concern than Iran's sabre rattling.
> I really believe that people who do not understand what they are talking about are better off doing some research than posting claims that do them a disservice.  That way we can have a more informaed debate about something that has nothing to do with liberal or labor.




Hello Rederob,

Whats not true ?.

Please check your spelling re: ( informaed ) ?.

Now you be a good boy today please. : 

Bob.


----------



## Joe Blow (27 April 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Moderators,
> 
> This is inflammatory and states that I kill people.




Snake, I saw you in both 'Escape From New York' and 'Escape From L.A.' and you killed plenty of people.


----------



## stockGURU (27 April 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Please check your spelling re: ( informaed ) ?.




Hello there Bobby... you need to check your punctuation. 

A question mark takes the place of a period (full stop) in a sentence, so you do not need to add one after it.  Just thought you should know.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Hello Rederob,
> What’s not true?
> Please check your spelling re: ( informaed ) ?
> Now you be a good boy today please. :
> Bob.



Bob
It was early and I had to head off to work, so never re-read the post first.
I will try to omprove (that's the version of improvement for those that chant but can't spell).
I think our attention is best spent on things closer to home that are happening now, rather than a US contrived game of chicken over non-existent nuclear capacity.
Things that come to mind are the Solomons, Vanuatu, West Irian, East Timor and the house down the road that plays its music so loud you can't sleep at night.
That's assuming we have got our relations with Indonesia back on track - something Downer has recently failed badly at.  For the record, Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim nation, and the likes of Snake Pliskin will have us believe in 3 easy steps that they could all become overnight terrorists if I have correctly grasped his logic.
Given that we have Indonesian fisherman regularly stopping over in creeks around Weipa to literally do their dirty laundry, all the efforts to fight terrorism are made to look silly as out beloved PM year on year neglects our northern borders.


----------



## Strw23 (27 April 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Bob
> That's assuming we have got our relations with Indonesia back on track - something Downer has recently failed badly at.




Im not sure how many of you are aware of this but Andrew Downer was never meant to be the Minister for Foriegn Affairs. After he lost the leadership battle he asked John Howard what position he would take in the new cabinet and John said "You can be the Minister for FA", and thats how it came about. 

Scott


----------



## twojacks28 (27 April 2006)

this is great conversation and all but lets get back to the original topic.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 April 2006)

Strw23 said:
			
		

> Im not sure how many of you are aware of this but Andrew Downer was never meant to be the Minister for Foriegn Affairs. After he lost the leadership battle he asked John Howard what position he would take in the new cabinet and John said "You can be the Minister for FA", and thats how it came about.
> 
> Scott




I am drunk and I know who the foreign minister is.

Joe blow too right man I did kill many in the movies.

rederob,

dream on sunshine.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 April 2006)

Strw23 said:
			
		

> Im not sure how many of you are aware of this but Andrew Downer was never meant to be the Minister for Foriegn Affairs. After he lost the leadership battle he asked John Howard what position he would take in the new cabinet and John said "You can be the Minister for FA", and thats how it came about.
> 
> Scott




Andrew Downer!

Is he an actor in 24 or something?


----------



## Strw23 (28 April 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Andrew Downer!
> 
> Is he an actor in 24 or something?




I think you mean David Palmer

Scott


----------



## rederob (28 April 2006)

Strw23 said:
			
		

> I think you mean David Palmer
> Scott



Didn't John Howard have a sea change?
As for young Alexander, his surname is quite unforgiving in the present climate.

Snake
Excellent posts last night. You should take up drinking professionally (but perhaps you already have?).


----------



## mista200 (30 April 2006)

LIberal!!!!!

Labor is crap and always have been, anyone who sides with unions is bad for business. In fact i don't see how anyone on this site could be a labor voter unless they planned something that could positively affect their share portfolio.

But im lucky i dont have to vote, im not on the electoral roll.


----------



## rederob (30 April 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> LIberal!!!!!
> 
> Labor is crap and always have been, anyone who sides with unions is bad for business. In fact i don't see how anyone on this site could be a labor voter unless they planned something that could positively affect their share portfolio.
> 
> But im lucky i dont have to vote, im not on the electoral roll.



So it's good to know how useful your view is.
I'm not sure how being "lucky" and not being able to vote are good things. 
Most people want to be able to have a say in who governs them.
I would never cast aspersions on your intelligence. 
But that's because I'm lucky, and don't have to.


----------



## mista200 (30 April 2006)

I havent ever seen someone worth voting for!
I think most people my age wouldnt even bother voting if it wasn't forced upon them.


----------



## rederob (30 April 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> I havent ever seen someone worth voting for!
> I think most people my age wouldnt even bother voting if it wasn't forced upon them.



Mista
I worked for very many years in Canberra.   If you knew the hours that politicians worked - State or federal - there is little chance anybody would volunteer: They do *NOT* do it for the money.
I am saddened that you never got an education that enabled you to see how important *EVERY * politician is to us, irrespective of what you personally think of them.
Barely a second goes by without the influence of some form of legislation impacting on your life.
If you do not believe me, why not try me with an example?


----------



## krisbarry (30 April 2006)

I agree with redrob, politicians work extremely long hours, for what I reckon is very little pay.  Sittings go well into the wee hours of the mornings and most would average 70-80 hour weeks

Look at the poverty wage that John Howard gets....some $350-$400 thousand per year, and he runs the whole country.  In comparison, the average CEO of a company earns around this, and they only have to run one company.

I am not too keen on Howard, but I do think he is way under paid, for the complexity of running a country.


----------



## mista200 (30 April 2006)

I live in Safe Labor seat where liberal candidates sometimes don't even stand. Why should i be forced to waste my time... there is no point in me voting. I will not enrol!


----------



## Julia (30 April 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> I live in Safe Labor seat where liberal candidates sometimes don't even stand. Why should i be forced to waste my time... there is no point in me voting. I will not enrol!




I doubt that the nation will fall over because of your lack of interest.
However, you could consider the issue of preferences even if you feel disinclined to vote for a primary candidate.

In view of your low opinion of politicians - and I don't believe any single one of them would have entered politics  without the hope and intention of making a genuine difference - how about putting yourself forward to give those in your electorate what you would undoubtedly see as a more worthwhile candidate.

Julia


----------



## rederob (1 May 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> ...how about putting yourself forward to give those in your electorate what you would undoubtedly see as a more worthwhile candidate.
> Julia



I see him going for the prozac now.
Wait
He has an idea.
No
Just an involuntary body function.


----------



## krisbarry (1 May 2006)

LOL


----------



## Prospector (1 May 2006)

I can actually see where Mista is coming   !  We live in a VERY safe Liberal seat, and we just get ignored by EVERYONE!

If a Labor Govt is in power, then we have no chance for those extra $$$ because they know they still wont get the majority vote.  If a Liberal Govt is in power, well, they know they are safe and will always get the majority vote whatever they do so they dont bother either and we still have no chance for those extra $$$ promises.

So come every election you trot off knowing that whatever you vote, you really dont influence the result.  Helpless really!

It is much more interesting living in a marginal seat, and if Mista lived in one of these then I am sure they would have more feeling that they could actually make a difference.


----------



## bullmarket (1 May 2006)

Hi mista200



			
				mista200 said:
			
		

> I live in Safe Labor seat where liberal candidates sometimes don't even stand. Why should i be forced to waste my time... there is no point in me voting. I will not enrol!




No offence, but you sound like you have a very apathetic view - and notice I said apathetic and not pathetic............amazing how much difference 1 little letter can make   

Anyway, maybe think of it this way - if enough Labor voters shared the same apathy as you appear to and decided to not vote because they thought Labor was a certainty in their seat then maybe one of the other candidates might just be lucky enough to get up and win   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## twojacks28 (1 May 2006)

there is no doubt that the PM and other important ministers dont get enough pay for what they have to do! do you agree?


----------



## rederob (1 May 2006)

Bullmarket
Here's a teaser for you.
Do you know why the Qld Labor government has so many women MP's?
The answer can be derived from your reply to Mista200.


----------



## Bobby (1 May 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Bullmarket
> Here's a teaser for you.
> Do you know why the Qld Labor government has so many women MP's?
> The answer can be derived from your reply to Mista200.




This will be interesting.
Will bull get it ? :sheep: 

Bob.


----------



## emma (2 May 2006)

I lived for many years in a safe Labor seat, then moved to a marginal.  Since the move, before elections I've been polled, rung by the AFR (as a small business owner), rung by both sides' electoral staff etc.  This unused to attention has been an interesting insight to how party politics works.

I would suggest that politicians as a random group exhibit the same behavours as any other, but get more exposure.  So no matter who we vote for, the same mix of human virtures and failings will be trying to do a job for which they really don't have any training.

I prefer a parlimentary mix of a small majority (perhaps with a few independants) and a hostile senate.  I know that people suggest this doesn't allow the government to get on with its "agenda" but I like them to be on their toes all the time.


----------



## Prospector (2 May 2006)

emma said:
			
		

> I prefer a parlimentary mix of a small majority (perhaps with a few independants) and a hostile senate.  I know that people suggest this doesn't allow the government to get on with its "agenda" but I like them to be on their toes all the time.




A recent SA election has meant an overwhelming majority for Labor in the Lower house (radio calls the Premier King Rann)  and a very hostile Senate because of the large number of independents.  

We have an independent by the name of Nick Zenophon who in the previous election, both Labor and Liberal gave him their preferences so he got in.  He stirs so much, the Public (us) love him because he will take on any cause for the underdog (his initial platform was 'no-pokies') and you just know that if you are getting the raw deal you can go to Nick and he will help.  The media love him because he is always doing these stunts.  For instance, when the MP's voted themselves to be able to buy really cheap cars, Nick set up a ride-on train set on the steps of Parliament, sat on it and went around in circles!  He called it the gravy train for Pollies!

The first time Parliament met after the election (last week) King Rann told the Upper House to behave themselves.  Red rag methinks - watch this space.


----------



## mista200 (2 May 2006)

Being apathetic is cool!

Not many of my friends give a F#$% about politics either!
In fact a friend of mine evaded the system for about 30 years until they tracked him down and forced him to enrol!!! 

But shouldnt us traders vote for whoever is willing to reduce capital gains tax?

At the end of the day....

Liberal - capitalism- better for business
labor- unions- bad for business


----------



## Strw23 (2 May 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> But shouldnt us traders vote for whoever is willing to reduce capital gains tax?
> 
> At the end of the day....
> 
> ...




This is a very narrow minded view.

1. As a trader you are not affected by capital gains tax, its income tax.

2. We are all people and there is more to be concerned about than just taxes. Theres hospitals, education, roads, foreign policy etc etc.

As far as I am concerened someone who does not vote or donkey votes should never be alowed to complain that they dont like the way things are being run, but they are normally the first to do so.

Scott


----------



## mista200 (2 May 2006)

hmmm well its all politics to me there is no difference really between the two main parties.

 Im concerned about income tax and capital gains tax. And i should have said investors instead of traders but yeah at the end of the day its this simple....

The more money the government takes from us, the less freedoms we have. The government spends money on crap i couldnt give a s#$% about anyway. 

 How about this cut taxes and make this a user pays society


----------



## twojacks28 (2 May 2006)

you cant make it a pay per use for everything and without taxes then we would have no roads hospitals etc. now what good would that do to the economy mista


----------



## Julia (2 May 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> hmmm well its all politics to me there is no difference really between the two main parties.
> 
> Im concerned about income tax and capital gains tax. And i should have said investors instead of traders but yeah at the end of the day its this simple....
> 
> ...




Good lord, mista.  I only hope your views are a reflection of the arrogance of youth and that as you (hopefully) mature a little you'll come to realise the stupidity of such over-simplifications.

Julia


----------



## Julia (2 May 2006)

The latest poll results today show Kim Beazley as less preferred to lead the Labor Party than Julia Gillard (most preferred) and Kevin Rudd (next preferred)_.
In the "preferred for Prime Minister" category he came behind John Howard, Peter Costello, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, yet he apparently shrugged off the results with the comment that he "wasn't interested in fighting Peter Costello at the next election" he would "prefer to take the fight up to John Howard and win".


???
Julia


----------



## emma (3 May 2006)

Mista, I think you should enlighten us, in a little more depth, as to how your user pay society would work and how it would be organised.


----------



## RodC (3 May 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> hmmm well its all politics to me there is no difference really between the two main parties.
> 
> Im concerned about income tax and capital gains tax. And i should have said investors instead of traders but yeah at the end of the day its this simple....
> 
> ...




If you're concerned about taxes, then you should be expressing these concerns to your elected representatives. However as you've chosen not be involved in the basics of the political process (voting) they would be quite within their rights to ignore you.

As Scott said, you've effectively forfeited your right to complain.

Rod.


----------



## rederob (3 May 2006)

RodC said:
			
		

> As Scott said, you've effectively forfeited your right to complain.
> Rod.



Don't worry Rod.
He'll be getting a letter from the Electoral Commission shortly, if he really does have a voting entitlement.
(Computers are great for catching out people nowadays.)


----------



## Prospector (3 May 2006)

I have always thought it wasnt compulsory to enrol, even if you get that letter.  It is only compulsory to vote if you are registered on the roll


----------



## bullmarket (3 May 2006)

Hi blondy 



			
				Prospector said:
			
		

> I have always thought it wasnt compulsory to enrol, even if you get that letter.  It is only compulsory to vote if you are registered on the roll




I think you'll find that a quick phone call or email to the AEC or a visit to their website will confirm that enrolment is compulsory after you reach voting age.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## twojacks28 (3 May 2006)

yes it is compulsary to enrol but they still sned you a form when you turn seventeen which you have to fill in.


----------



## wayneL (3 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that a quick phone call or email to the AEC or a visit to their website will confirm that enrolment is compulsory after you reach voting age.




We are the only western country to have compulsory voting. (that I am aware of) This means that I am forced to deliver a mandate to those whom I am vehemently opposed. This is a breach of both natural justice and civil rights.



			
				Strw23 said:
			
		

> As far as I am concerened someone who does not vote or donkey votes should never be alowed to complain that they dont like the way things are being run




I don't buy that... not even for a millisecond. I have several (perhaps overly idealistic) requirements for any political party that I vote for. None of the current batch of orwellian criminals, cabalists or just general nongs, even come remotely close to my ideal.

Why should I be legally required to participate and perhaps expadite (in my very limited capacity as one person) a process in which the victor will claim a mandate to impliment policies I fundamentally and vociferously oppose. 

That's totalitarian!!!

If then it is viewed that I forgoe my right to critisize, then I am afraid that you are falling victim to propaganda, and expiditing the process of ushering in fascist totalitarian state. I maintain my rights of free speech and refusing to vote (even if I must donkey vote) AND critising the state is encompassed within that right.

This attitude is akin to removing the rights of a spectator at a footy match to critisize an obviously biased and corrupt umpire, just because he/she is not a player... it's absurd.

Cheers


----------



## bullmarket (3 May 2006)

Hi wayne 

I can see what you are saying *but I firmly believe that compulsory voting is better overall.*

But even with compulsory voting you still have the option to vote informal if you choose.  But at least by making everyone turn up to a voting booth then hopefully at least some of the voters who would not be there if they had the choice might reconsider and put in a genuine vote since they are there anyway and hence you then end up with an election result which is more representative of the electorate's wishes.

If you have voluntary voting you obviously then encourage anarchy and apathy to some extent *but worse still   you could end up like the US, where voting is voluntary, and end up with a leader like George Bush *  

At the end of the day *someone* still has to run the country.

Therefore, compulsory voting could be seen as the lesser of two evils imo   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## wayneL (3 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> ... you could end up like the US, where voting is voluntary, and end up with a leader like George Bush [/B]




IMO we do. The only difference is that Johnny can actually construct a sentence in the english language _ad lib_.

It must be remembered though, that our "leaders" are not actually our leaders. They are just the roadshow to distract the plebs.


----------



## bullmarket (3 May 2006)

ok wayne 

I'm going to use the.......let's agree to disagree.............out-clause as there is no more chance that you will change my view than there is of me changing yours.   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## mista200 (3 May 2006)

Yes its compulsory to enrol.. but that doesnt mean they really care or look for people who havent enrolled. I have a friend who evaded the system for 30 years. + i know many people, usually young poor people that really couldnt care less about filling in papers and havent done so. I have been eligable to enrol for 7 years but i havent got any letter in the mail yet...........

 Voting should no way be forced upon us. Why should we be forced to vote for someone when we dont see anyone worth voting for!

 Although i think that if voting wasnt compulsory liberals woild always get in! Since most of the bums that couldnt be bothered voting would tend to lean towards labor.

And dont be silly people ill explain how the user pays society works when i get more time to write a reply!


----------



## bullmarket (3 May 2006)

Hi mista2000 



			
				mista200 said:
			
		

> Yes its compulsory to enrol.. but that doesnt mean they really care or look for people who havent enrolled. I have a friend who evaded the system for 30 years. + i know many people, usually young poor people that really couldnt care less about filling in papers and havent done so. I have been eligable to enrol for 7 years but i havent got any letter in the mail yet...........
> 
> Voting should no way be forced upon us. Why should we be forced to vote for someone when we dont see anyone worth voting for!
> 
> ...




no offence, but to be honest, reading between the lines of your posts I am not convinced that you have actually reached voting age yet   

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## wayneL (3 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> ok wayne
> 
> I'm going to use the.......let's agree to disagree.............out-clause as there is no more chance that you will change my view than there is of me changing yours.
> 
> ...




NO NO, YOU MUST AGREE WITH ME!!!!! It's compulsory!

Just joshing


----------



## Odysseus (3 May 2006)

Noone with money in the stock market could seriously contemplate allowing Labor to run the country. During forty or so years of watching politics I cannot remember ever having seen such chaotic and incompetent rabble.


----------



## twojacks28 (3 May 2006)

Odysseus said:
			
		

> Noone with money in the stock market could seriously contemplate allowing Labor to run the country. During forty or so years of watching politics I cannot remember ever having seen such chaotic and incompetent rabble.




AMEN they are a bunch of fools. espically kim he has no idea!


----------



## Prospector (3 May 2006)

OK people, I will have another go at this. : 

It isnt compulsory to vote.  
Australian voters face two compulsions. The first is compulsory enrolment.   All voters entitled to vote must register to have their name included on the electoral roll.

The second compulsion is the duty to attend a polling place. Once on the roll, you must attend a polling place on election day, or take advantage of the various opportunities for pre-poll and postal voting. When you attend the polling place, you must take a ballot paper and deposit it in the appropriate ballot box.

One of the consequences of compulsory voting is that we have a higher level of informal voting.

But you dont have to vote


----------



## bullmarket (3 May 2006)

Hi prospector 

I don't think compulsory voting results in a higher informal vote in reality, but only in the absolute number - with voluntary voting those informal voters would not have turned up anyway and so the nett affect is 0 *unless * as in the point I made earlier supporting compulsory voting, apart from discouraging apathy, hopefully some of those that turn up to a voting booth that would not have had they been given the choice might then reconsider and submit a genuine vote since they are at the booth anyway, and so you then have an election result that is more reflective of the electorate's wishes.

Obviously even with compulsory voting you have the option to vote informally.

Prison Break is about to start, so have a good evening 

bullmarket


----------



## wayneL (3 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi prospector
> 
> I don't think compulsory voting results in a higher informal vote in reality, but only in the absolute number - with voluntary voting those informal voters would not have turned up anyway and so the nett affect is 0 *unless * as in the point I made earlier supporting compulsory voting, apart from discouraging apathy, hopefully some of those that turn up to a voting booth that would not have had they been given the choice might then reconsider and submit a genuine vote since they are at the booth anyway, and so you then have an election result that is more reflective of the electorate's wishes.
> 
> ...




A further point about compulsory voting and apathy. Legal compulsion to drop a ballot paper in a box does not circumvent apathy in the slightest. 

There are great hoards of people who, despite this ludicrous requirement, remain firmly entrenched in their apathy. These people make their voting decisions based upon either 1/ traditional voting patterns i.e. labour for the working man, liberal for the businessman 2/ 8 second sound bites constructed by Rupert Murdoch and staff. 3/ who seems to be the nicest/sexiest/erudite or a host of other percieved virtues with no reference to actual policy.

Do we want these people deciding the social and economic path our nation takes via its so called leaders? No flippin' way mate. Let them stay at home and drink their two bottles of beer and watch the footy on that particular Saturday.

Let those fully interested and capable of actually making an intelligent decision do so. The rest should just stay away


----------



## Ants (3 May 2006)

GO THE GREENS 
COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY
If we cant run it responsibly then dont let it run at all!
FREE THE PEOPLE   :  :  :


----------



## Julia (3 May 2006)

One of the concerns I have about compulsory voting is that there is a section of the population who do turn up and do mark a ballot paper and drop it in the box.  However, they have absolutely no idea about any of the candidates whose names appear on the ballot paper.  They just tick the boxes in a random way.

So in this sense you could say that compulsory voting actually does not result in a genuine representation of the "wishes of the people".
Their apathy is simply presented as a vote which nevertheless will have an effect on the outcome of the election.

I lived most of my life in NZ.  Voting is not compulsory there.  However, from memory I think the turnout was over 80% in most elections.  You could say that the NZ election results were more genuinely a reflection of what voters wanted in that they simply omitted the meaningless votes of people who couldn't care less what happened (but would undoubtedly whinge anyway).

Julia


----------



## bullmarket (3 May 2006)

Hi wayne / Julia

the points you make are valid but to be honest if you want me to take them seriously you're going to have to come up with some verifiable numbers that proves any of my views on compulsory voting are wrong in any way.

_Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to change your way of thinking._  I'm just calling it as I see it and will continue to maintain my views until I see verifable info proving I am wrong in any way whatsoever.

Have a nice evening to you both 

bullmarket


----------



## Julia (4 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi wayne / Julia
> 
> the points you make are valid but to be honest if you want me to take them seriously you're going to have to come up with some verifiable numbers that proves any of my views on compulsory voting are wrong in any way.
> 
> ...



bullmarket

Frankly, I don't care if you take my views seriously or not.  I wouldn't mind a dollar for everytime you've posted that final sentence.  

We are having a general discussion here.  I am not required to "prove" anything to you or anyone else.

Julia


----------



## Ants (4 May 2006)

The Greens are he only ones that have a GENUINE commitment to the environment that SUPPORTS US. Why is that such a hard thing for people to wrap their heads around. These people are the smarter ones as they are seing the BIG picture do you honestly believe that these people couldnt run an economy _or get the same boffins that do now_  just with a slightly healthier_/responsible agenda_?


----------



## Knobby22 (4 May 2006)

The trouble with the greens is not their environmental policy but there economics policies which go back to the socialist left days of the 70s.

If they could be more middle ground they would get my vote.

I am for compulsory voting for the simple reason that it helps get people interested in the policies of the government and reduces apathy and makes everyone part of the decision and reduces the effects of pressure groups.

It always surprises me that the people most vehemently oposing this policy are people who will vote no matter what.

Look at the US and how that voting system completely fails the people.


----------



## twojacks28 (4 May 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> The trouble with the greens is not their environmental policy but there economics policies which go back to the socialist left days of the 70s.
> 
> If they could be more middle ground they would get my vote.
> 
> ...






i have to agree with you knobby. compulsary voting has both pros and cons but the main thing is that it makes people interested and understanding about laws and polices etc. also the greens have o idea how to run a country. they only concentrate on the environment and thats why they will never become government!


----------



## rederob (4 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> i have to agree with you knobby. compulsary voting has both pros and cons but the main thing is that it makes people interested and understanding about laws and polices etc. also the greens have o idea how to run a country. they only concentrate on the environment and thats why they will never become government!



Pull ya head in brutha.
Me mates ran this place for 40,000 years on "environmentally sustainable grounds" before youse whitefellas cumalong a few years back, eh.


----------



## twojacks28 (4 May 2006)

ahahhahahahaah thats funny. but we are talking about nowdays where environmentalists cant run a country! they can just wrap their minds around one idea which is the environment.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 May 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Pull ya head in brutha.
> Me mates ran this place for 40,000 years on "environmentally sustainable grounds" before youse whitefellas cumalong a few years back, eh.




That's why the diprotodon, the giant kangaroo and numerous other animals became extinct with the coming of man to Australia.

Not that it hasn't got worse.


----------



## Rafa (5 May 2006)

The Australian is one of the most Pro Liberal papers going around...
Thats why todays editorial needs to be considered seriously, cause they seem to finally realise the lack of reform of the Howard-Costello era... i.e. they've been living off the reforms and investments of the Keating era...

they also raise some of the other more serious social impacts of some of their policies too...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial: Inefficient evidence
May 05, 2006
The rate rise shows the growing cost of avoiding reform

WHO will go down in history as the stronger, more reform-minded treasurer: Paul Keating or Peter Costello? The answer looks more like Paul Keating every day. Yet as Peter Costello prepares to hand down his 11th budget next Tuesday, the need for reform is stronger than ever. Just this week the Reserve Bank raised interest rates, citing structural inefficiencies as partial justification for the move. And the OECD has long warned that Australia was in danger of growing complacent on reform, to the detriment of growth. Compared with his predecessor, the Treasurer has done a pretty poor job enacting the policies and reforms that will best serve Australia over the next decade, and has instead created a system in which punishing effective marginal tax rates and lack of training discourage or prevent millions of Australians from working. The economic success of the past decade has been built on one very strong budget in 1997, a lot of good fortune, a China-driven resources boom and the economic reforms instituted by Mr Keating when he sat in Mr Costello's chair. Despite a few passes at clearing out regulatory deadwood and the introduction of the GST, John Howard and his Treasurer have spent more of the past decade handing out middle-class welfare to create a broad base of supportive voters for each successive election than they have doing the hard yards of structural reform. And ironically, many of those middle-class voters on the receiving end of Mr Costello's bread-and-circuses campaign will see the tax cuts from last year's budget, slated to take effect this July, eaten up by the higher mortgage payments that will flow from yesterday's interest rate rise. 

The fact is the Howard Government is largely responsible for a situation in which Australia's interest rates are among the highest in the industrialised world, and not working is a rational economic decision for millions of people. The causes of this are not hard to identify. Lack of investment in training has created a chronic skills shortage and a two-tier economy in which well-trained workers command higher wages (fuelling consumer spending and eventually inflation) because a huge segment of the workforce is simply not in the game due to lack of qualifications. More workers are further discouraged from entering the job market by high EMTRs, a consequence of, on the one hand, the Government's failure to embrace tax reform by broadening and flattening rates, and on the other the creation of a welfare system that distorts incentives and quickly withdraws benefits as people move up the economic ladder. Yet a National Australia Bank Survey shows firms would expand if they could only find enough workers to hire. Meanwhile, an overburdened infrastructure is unable to absorb what growth is occurring. Clogged ports and rail lines restrict growth. As with tax, leadership on infrastructure reform – either in the form of privatisation or public-private partnerships – has been lacking from Canberra. Companies like Macquarie Bank, which are busy building the infrastructures of our Asian competitors, are discouraged from investing in domestic programs due to a tangled mess of state and federal regulations that desperately needs to be undone.

The danger of doing nothing is that growth will continue to sputter even as the Reserve Bank is forced to keep raising rates, as it has been doing since 2002. This would, in the medium term, end Australia's record 14-year run of growth and be a black mark on the legacy of the Howard Government, which has been so successful in other areas. And although the Government has achieved a few successes this term – the sale of Telstra and industrial relations reform – these are unlikely to sustain productivity improvements of the order seen during the past decade. Peter Costello and John Howard must stop worrying about the political heat that comes with reform and tax cuts, and start doing what's right for the economy.


----------



## twojacks28 (6 May 2006)

without a doubt costello would go down as the best treasurer and keating would be miles behind. the interest rate rise has nothing to do with the government it is down by a seperate body. and the rise wasnt bad it has just made the rates what they should be.


----------



## rederob (6 May 2006)

twojacks28 said:
			
		

> without a doubt costello would go down as the best treasurer and keating would be miles behind. the interest rate rise has nothing to do with the government it is down by a seperate body. and the rise wasnt bad it has just made the rates what they should be.



The Coalition government via its GST is the biggest taxing governement we have ever had.
Treasurers should be measured by the hard decisions they take, and governements by nation building.
Costello's hard decisions are about *how much money not to give*, rather than where will the money come from.
As an Australian I would love to know where our government sees our nation heading, and what it presents as our core values.
Our  kow towing to US-centric activities leaves me cold, while the recent IR reforms will continue to strip from workers conditions of employment (and wages) won over generations.
If I were a large business or corporation I would be heavily investing in the Coalition's next election as they will keep my bottom line safe.
I am not, and I can't think of much the government is doing at any level to give us a future we can be proud of.


----------



## bullmarket (6 May 2006)

Good afternoon everyone 



			
				twojacks28 said:
			
		

> without a doubt costello would go down as the best treasurer and keating would be miles behind. the interest rate rise has nothing to do with the government it is down by a seperate body. and the rise wasnt bad it has just made the rates what they should be.




I'm not up to speed on my political history as you might be so I'm not sure if Costello is the best we ever had but I would definitely put him up there with the very best....and little Johnny as PM for me would have to go down as one of the best PM's we have ever had....especially in terms of running the economy.  I don't agree with eveything they have done but I do believe that they genuinely believe they are doing what's best for the overwhelimg majority of the population.  Unfortunately no matter what policy is introduced by any political party in government it will not be beneficial for everyone 

Re the GST people seem to forget that tax cuts were introduced to compensate for the GST and although some unfortunately did not end up infront after the GST and tax cuts, I believe the overwhelming majority did.

After we did our number crunching to see how the GST would affect us it worked out that annually we would be better off - albeit only a relatively small ~$300 - but still we were infront and so I at least had no hesitation voting the GST in when  Howard and to some extent Costello showed immense courage and staked their political careers on the line when they went to the polls a few years ago on the platform of introducing the GST if elected so it was all above board. And the electorate chose to vote in the GST. *Imo the majority of people whinging about the GST are simply displaying sour grapes by being in the minority who didn't get their way with the GST.*

cheers and have a good weekend everyone 

bullmarket


----------



## greggy (6 May 2006)

I consider myself to be a swinging voter and my philosophy is small "l" liberal.  At the last state election I voted for Mr Bracks in Victoria and will vote for him again later this year as the state opposition is hellbent on self destruction.  At the last federal election I voted for Mr Howard as I felt that although Mr Latham had some good ideas he came across as too volatile.  I feel that the labor party is better at running state governments whereas the liberal party is more adept at running the national economy and security issues.  I like Mr Beazley, but feel that on some issues he should be taking a stronger lead.  For instance, the ALP's uranium policy is a joke.  It favours the big end of town.  He should either oppose uranium alltogether or let everyone mine uranium albeit with strong safeguards in place.  Should Mr Beazley prove that he is capable of matching Mr Howard on the national economy and on security issues he could well be a better bet at the next election than Mr Latham was.  At this stage I'll back Mr Howard even though his IR policy is looking shaky, but I have not ruled out voting for Mr Beazley should he become a stronger leader.   The result could well be even closer should he face Mr Costello at the next election.  I personally see Mr Costello as a brilliant treasurer but as PM I feel his arrogance would come out just like Keating.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 May 2006)

Ants said:
			
		

> The Greens are he only ones that have a GENUINE commitment to the environment that SUPPORTS US. Why is that such a hard thing for people to wrap their heads around. These people are the smarter ones as they are seing the BIG picture do you honestly believe that these people couldnt run an economy _or get the same boffins that do now_  just with a slightly healthier_/responsible agenda_?



It is a FACT that Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens, has strongly advocated coal as preferable to renewable energy on several separate occasions. The Greens are clearly NOT concerned about sustainability. Their own track record is proof in that regard.

It is also worth noting that Green policies are heavily based on the increasing consumption of cheap oil and the notion that this is sustainable. Absolute nonsense according to practically any serious environmentalist or expert in the field and dangerous both environmentally and economically.

Fundamentally, the Greens _promote conservation_ and _oppose sustainability_ where the two conflict (as they generally do). That's great news for the scenery _today_ but absolutely disastrous for long term ecological sustainability.


----------



## Ants (6 May 2006)

Cool some one chimes in. But I STILL think the greens are the better alternative  for me even as a protest vote. Ive heard the 2 party system is a crock. I will look into that as I have been a greeny forever and my views are constantly broadening. Thanks Smurf!



There are many supporters of the greens that have their heads screwed on right and I am sure they are aware of these _supposedly_ contradictory views.

"Fundamentally, the Greens promote conservation and oppose sustainability where the two conflict (as they generally do)."

as opposed to the Liberals that oppose conservation and sustainability wherever theres a buck to be made



"That's great news for the scenery today but absolutely disastrous for long term ecological sustainability. "

 The scenery is all that the liberals give a hoot about when it comes to nature its certainly not bio diversity.
and in my opinion conservation IS ecological sustainability.

As with every thing balance is a hard thing to achieve. I just believe that the greens are trying more than any other party, and in the end the natural environment is the key to our future.


----------



## bullmarket (6 May 2006)

Hi Ants

I posted earlier that I vote for whichever party I feel will do the better job for at least the next term.

At both Federal and State levels (Vic) it's a no-brainer decision for me 

Liberal at federal level

Labor (Bracks) at State.

_Re you comment below:_



> ...........do you honestly believe that these people couldnt run an economy or get the same boffins that do now just with a slightly healthier/responsible agenda?..........




If the Greens want to chase my vote then I would firstly need to know the following so I can check on their track records in order to determine whether I think they are up to the job.

1. Who would they have as PM? - I assume it would be Bob Brown

2. Who have the Greens got right now that would be treasurer?

3. Who have the Greens got right now that would be Foreign affairs minister.

4. Who have the Greens got right now that would be Defence Minister

5. Who have the Greens got right now that would be Minister for Industrial Relations?

Please excuse my ignorance for not knowing the answers to the above, since I don't follow the Greens closely, but I hope you can fill in the answers for me.

At the end of the day, for the Greens to have any chance of getting my vote the people in at least the above roles would have to have some time in 'opposition' to gain my trust and convince me of their competancy.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Prospector (6 May 2006)

HI Mr Bullmarket
Of course your questions are spot on.  The Greens can never form a Government, at best they are useful in reminding people about Environmental issues.  But as Smurf points out, they are so averse to alternatives like Uranium that their green policy does not make any long term sense.

Labor is starting to talk like small 'l' liberals - eg with the private school fee issue, so maybe they are starting to think like an alternative Govt needs to think before they can get my vote.  However, as it stands at the moment while their policies are driven by trade unions then I will continue to avoid them.


----------



## greggy (6 May 2006)

This debate is getting interesting.  As far as I'm concerned, the Greens mean well but they will never get my vote.  I feel that we have an over-reliance and have to look at alternative fuels such as uranium.  The Greens may well one day revisit this issues.  Some of the party's economic policies are a little bit on the wild side.  To increase income taxes when we have a big surplus is a ridiculous policy.  On human rights issues I sometimes agree with the Greens on human rights. For example, Bob Brown's views on human rights in China.  However, we must be diplomatic about how we approach them on such matters.  Overall, with the Greens I feel that the problem is that they are still relatively inexperienced, but atleast they're still better than One Nation.    
As previously mentioned, for the record, I voted for Mr Bracks and Mr Howard at the last state and federal elections.  My political philosophy is small l liberal.


----------



## Ants (6 May 2006)

1. Who would they have as PM? - I assume it would be Bob Brown

NO he is a puppet . It would be KERMIT.

2. Who have the Greens got right now that would be treasurer?

Slimer

3. Who have the Greens got right now that would be Foreign affairs minister.

Green Lantern

4. Who have the Greens got right now that would be Defence Minister

The Hulk


5. Who have the Greens got right now that would be Minister for Industrial 
Relations?

Green Arrow or Oscar the Grouch.


----------



## bullmarket (6 May 2006)

ok thanks Ants 

At least you confirmed what I thought was the situation   

So I'll stick with the liberal and labor parties under which I am much better off with 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## rederob (6 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> *Imo the majority of people whinging about the GST are simply displaying sour grapes by being in the minority who didn't get their way with the GST.*



If you spent more in accounting for the GST than making payments to the ATO after the fact, you might not agree.
If your sports association had to add 10% to its fees so that kids can play their chosen sport I am not sure you would agree.
If you chose tradespeople to do jobs for you "GST free", you might agree.
It is a fact that the GST has benefited the wealthy substantially by reducing or eliminating taxes on products at the luxury end of the market and transferred that burden onto lesser earning folk.
Unfortunately Bullmarket has a narrow understanding of the impact of GST.
I felt the real impact as the consulting services I provided post-GST were pretty much the same pre-GST, meaning I absorbed a loss of over $10,000 per year.
The service industry felt the impact immediately, and it took restaurants and the like several years to achieve their previous levels of profitability as they too had to absorb many of the extra costs associated with running their businesses.
Perhaps "sour grapes" does describe losing over $10,000 a year, although it was what I would normally have put into super, given I am responsible for my own contributions. I would have called it straightforward robbery.


----------



## Ants (6 May 2006)

Mr Bullmarket. You may well be better off, now... superficially but the environment is going to hell in a handbag and the liberals with a big or a lil' L 
definately arn't helping the situation at all. and thats a "FACT".


----------



## bullmarket (6 May 2006)

Hi rederob

I can't verify any of those numbers you posted or any of the very generalised claims you made and so, no offence, they mean zero to me.

The majority of the electorate chose to vote in the GST and I still believe, as I posted earlier, that the tax cuts more than compensated for the majority of people/families for the replacement of sales tax or whatever with the GST which although made some goods and services more expensive it also made many goods and services cheaper where the GST was less than the tax they replaced....and some essential goods attract no GST and still had the old sales or whatever taxes removed thus making them cheaper.

_As I posted earlier, sure some will not have been better off post GST but I still believe the majority have been better off._
cheers

bullmarket


----------



## bullmarket (6 May 2006)

Hi Prospector and Ants 

you guys can feel free to drop the formalities - I don't have to be addressed with a 'Mr'   

just call me........bullmarket or bull  ..............or as tech/a used to call me when he got upset with me......................bulldust   

cheers
bullmarket


----------



## rederob (6 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> I can't verify any of those numbers you posted or any of the very generalised claims you made and so, no offence, they mean zero to me.



Then you really need to work a lot harder on your claims which are more generalised still, "_I still believe the majority have been better off_".
It is not rocket science to work out out that prior to the GST a sporting association did not need to levy a GST:  So post-GST they are required to add that on to memberships.  The sporting Association I work with contributes literally thousands of dollars every year to the ATO via a GST impost on children as young as 5 years old: Come along to our next AGM and look at our accounts or PM your email to me and I can send you a copy so that you can't claim an ignorance of the facts.
If you did some homework you could have looked at a typical restaurant menu pre and post-GST - and you would have found that very few put up their costs to defray the GST burden - perhaps you did not frequent such outlets around the time so don't have first hand experience.
Furthermore, the fact is that "consultants" (of which I am one) pre-GST would provide their services at a cost that clearly did not include the GST.  The introduction of the GST required those same services to include a 10% premium.  
I'm not asking you to "verify" anything, but exhibiting a lack of understanding of the impact of the GST, or a willingness not to acknowledge the impact of the GST, is a curious defence of your position on the matter.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2006)

bullmarket:

I'd query your phrase
  "the majority of the electorate chose to vote in the GST......."

We are presently having a discussion on the merits of voting either Liberal or Labor.  I don't think many of us would be prepared to offer whole-hearted support of either party for every one of their policies.

I don't think I'm atypical when I vote for the least awful of the options in terms of Liberal or Labor.
That doesn't mean that I support all of the policies proposed by the party for whom I am voting.

So what I'm suggesting is that at the time of the GST being "voted in" this may simply have been a consequence of the majority of the population finding the option of voting Labor unpalatable, and although they may not have been enthusiastic about the GST, would have had to accept it as an unavoidable consequence of voting Liberal.

e.g. if an election were to be held tomorrow, I would vote Liberal largely on the basis that I believe they are more competent to manage the economy than is Labor.  I do not, however, fully support all their other policies, but would have to accept the implementation of those other policies if they were elected.

Julia


----------



## bullmarket (6 May 2006)

Hi rederob

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.......I acknowledged that a minority were probably worse off post GST but I believe the majority have been better off after the GST.  

You posted your views and I posted mine and gave my reasons for them....if you don't accept them that is fine by me because at the end of the day I don't see how it matters 

_We obviously disagree and I don't have a problem with that, but if you want me to alter my views in any way for some reason then you will have to post some verifiable numbers proving anything I said is wrong in anyway whatsoever....it's as simple as that_....

In the mean time we'll just have to agree to disagree.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## bullmarket (6 May 2006)

Hi Julia

re your comment:



> .......So what I'm suggesting is that at the time of the GST being "voted in" this may simply have been a consequence of the majority of the population finding the option of voting Labor unpalatable, and although they may not have been enthusiastic about the GST, would have had to accept it as an unavoidable consequence of voting Liberal.........




Yes that is a possibility and I'm sure that was the case for a few....but then again it may not have been the case.

As I mentioned earlier, after we did some number crunching to see how the GST would affect us we saw that we were about $300pa better off with the GST and so I personally at least had no hesitation voting in the GST.  

I also believe that the vast majority of the electorate had the ability to work out for themselves if they were going to be better off after the GST and the associated tax cuts.  

From my experience talking to others I believe the vast majority of the electorate did work out also that they were better off after the GST and tax cuts and hence voted in the GST.....working out the pros and cons of the GST was not rocket science 

good night,

bullmarket


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2006)

The ultimate proof on Green policy integrity came only a few days ago when Bob Brown proclaimed hydro-electricity "clean and green" and said that use of coal-fired power was a "dirty" tainting of the supply.

A somewhat amazing statement given that what is now the Greens was formed (originally as the UTG and then as The Independents) for the express purpose of opposing hydro-electricity and Bob Brown himself has been a long standing advocate for using coal.

I nominate that as being one of Australia's greatest ever political backflips.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi rederob
> 
> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.......I acknowledged that a minority were probably worse off post GST but I believe the majority have been better off after the GST.
> 
> ...



bullmarket
It is clear you cannot see the points I am making because you have chosen not to.
It is not that we disagree about anything.
It is a fact that children are now paying taxes via the GST on items that were never taxable in the past.  I am not sure that is a good outcome for anyone as this tax is now being paid by millions of Australians that never paid it before because it never extended to them.
Your challenge of "verifiable numbers" is as churlish as those that seek evidence of the Holocaust.
Yet without any evidence at all you contend only a minority are worse off: Who are this majority that are better off?
You may well be talking about "views", but I am not: Unlike you, I have presented just a few "facts" about the impact of the GST, and offered to you an opportunity to research the matter further.
I notice many of your posts choose the defence of "agreeing to disagree".
This is the classic defence of people who choose not to debate facts or possibilities, but hide behind a screen of generalities and half-truths.
I have no intention of trying to change the minds of any readers, although it would be good if they "opened" them just a little to a possible alternative reality.
In my world it is not a matter of *what * you think, but "*how*" you think that is important. It assumes that geting it wrong sometimes is part of the journey of getting it right when it counts.
Debating an issue with a person that closes their mind to matters beyond their own experience can never be fruitful.


----------



## emma (7 May 2006)

Perhaps someone whose political memory is better than mine can recall accurately BUT I thought that GST was introduced after the Liberals were voted in, on a no GST platform.  This caused John Howard to lose his "Honest John" tag.  Then the Libs at the next election when they were re-elcted, claimed their re-election was a vote for the GST.  Can anyone help clarify?


----------



## bullmarket (7 May 2006)

Hi rederob 

no problem   but to me we're just going round in circles now.

You keep saying that you and others are worse off post GST and I don't doubt that, but the extent to which you are worse off is of no interest to me because it is unverifiable and the bottom line is that you are then simply in the minority I have acknowledged in earlier posts that have been worse off.

But I still believe the vast majority are better off with the GST especially given the tax cuts that were introduced.

I have stated my views earlier and gave my reasons why and so I don't have an issue with the GST and so was happy to vote it in and so I don't have anything more to discuss about it.

At the end of the day, for me personally, there are much more important issues around the world atm with people suffering much harsher hardships than what you claim to be under to be concerned about and debate.

So it's Sunday, try to relax and not take things so seriously.

Insiders has started so I will see you in the soup during the week 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## rederob (7 May 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> But I still believe the vast majority are better off with the GST especially given the tax cuts that were introduced.



I guess the difference will always be that some "believe" and others "know".
Others still search, so they might know.
I apply the process across the board, so the GST matter is just a catalyst for thinking more broadly.
I agree there are more important matters.
And because most people nowadays seem to rely on limited sources of information - especially mainstream media -  they seldom question what is happening around them.
Our goverment is relatively silent on Zimbabwe and Sudan where thousands are dying evey month from preventable events, mostly disease and starvation now.  Yet comparatively few "western" soldiers are killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and its daily broadcast news.
Our government today seems to have lost its way in the world, or is glued to the US.
I will be looking towards the next federal elections to see where, as a nation, we are to be guided.
The "economic management" debate is an utter furphy - the previous Labor government guided the nation through tougher times and was in power longer than the present Coalition government.
Give me a $15b surplus as treasurer (on the back of higher taxes as that's where revenue comes from) and I will give you a budget to die for.


----------



## Julia (7 May 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> I guess the difference will always be that some "believe" and others "know".
> Others still search, so they might know.
> I apply the process across the board, so the GST matter is just a catalyst for thinking more broadly.
> I agree there are more important matters.
> ...





Excellent, Rederob.  

When are you announcing your candidature?

Julia


----------



## Prospector (7 May 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> If you spent more in accounting for the GST than making payments to the ATO after the fact, you might not agree.
> If your sports association had to add 10% to its fees so that kids can play their chosen sport I am not sure you would agree.
> If you chose tradespeople to do jobs for you "GST free", you might agree.
> It is a fact that the GST has benefited the wealthy substantially by reducing or eliminating taxes on products at the luxury end of the market and transferred that burden onto lesser earning folk.





I hear ya rederob.  I have had to purchase software, spend several hours a week just doing the GST related stuff. Is that productive? When did I, as a research consultant suddenly become an accountant. And I dont get paid any more for the extra work.  And how is Joe Blow the carpenter( :  )  expected to suddenly drop tools and do the books! I am now an unpaid Tax collector for the Government.  Most people have no idea of how GST issues have impacted terribly on small businesses.  We do our best to comply, and then get threatened with nasty letters if we make a mistake!  

I always write 9999 in the space where it asks you how much time it takes to fill in the BAS.  It is not the filling in of the form that takes the time, it is the compilation of the info 'behind' the form!

I know of so many businesses who gave up when the GST was introduced.  I wonder if that is part of the reason why we are now so short of plumbers, electricians, tilers etc

And what has it done to stop the black market - diddly squat.

I NEED A UNION :swear:


----------



## visual (7 May 2006)

Prospector,
I`m starting to think that this shortage of skilled workers is turning out to be a shortage of workers willing to be paid in chinese renminbi.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2006)

Prospector
You and I and many millions of others are in the same boat.
But some would have us believe we are in a minority.
One would think that after the GST had bedded down people wouldn't be too concerned about it.
Yet the small business people I talk to each week (and this is a part of what I do for a living) have no kind words for it all.
My accountant loves the GST because he had to grow his business to accommodate new clients - such as the tradespeople you are talking about.
And the bill he now gives me is over $200 more than it would have been pre-GST!
I feel so much better for bullmarket's explanation that the GST was not rocket science - lord knows how big the bills would have been if it was!


----------



## Prospector (7 May 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> .
> Yet the small business people I talk to each week (and this is a part of what I do for a living) have no kind words for it all.
> My accountant loves the GST because he had to grow his business to accommodate new clients - such as the tradespeople you are talking about.
> And the bill he now gives me is over $200 more than it would have been pre-GST!




Wow, only $200!  Mine went up in the 000's - and I do all my own reconciliations and BAS!

My accountant actually had to merge his business with another accountancy practice simply because he felt unable to keep up with the GST (wasnt it called 'the simplified tax system  )

And so much for the GST getting rid of all the state taxes - in SA we are going to have to pay $35,000   stamp duty on a property purchase!
Oh yes, and GST on all the fees!


----------



## rederob (7 May 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Wow, only $200!  Mine went up in the 000's - and I do all my own reconciliations and BAS!



The bill I get from my accountant is several thousand $$s, but the GST only added a few hundred to what it would have been.
I pay well over $10k GST to the ATO each year, and have very few offsets - as you know if you are in the consultancy business.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> I know of so many businesses who gave up when the GST was introduced.  I wonder if that is part of the reason why we are now so short of plumbers, electricians, tilers etc
> 
> And what has it done to stop the black market - diddly squat.
> 
> I NEED A UNION :swear:



Off topic but relevant I think.   

Another reason for the shortage of trades people is that very few are willing to actually do that sort of work these days. Everyone seems to want an office job wearing a suit and tie. In my opinion this substantially comes back to a generation of parents defining success as a uni degree and a desk job.

The education system seems to be a real problem too. I'm not certain if this is still the case but to my understanding some states (NSW?) have some sort of set curriculum in years 11 and 12 and are thus seriously constrained in their ability to teach practical subjects such as electronics, metal machining and fabrication, CAD, motor mechanics, carpentry, business studies, office skills, music production, child care and so on as a result. It might make for impressive numbers but that's not a balanced education aligned with the needs of the real world. 

That's not to say that the GST hasn't contributed. I really don't know what the situation is there with actual numbers of people. It would certainly have added to costs but whether or not these were passed on to consumers (as they should be) or absorbed by the tradespeople (which they shouldn't be doing) is another matter. 

All the ridiculous paperwork certainly isn't an incentive to start a small business. In my opinion with modern technology it really ought to be a matter of maybe 30 minutes a month rather than hours per week. Likewise electronic systems are capable of collecting sufficient info to eliminate virtually all tax returns etc but, presumably to maintain the numbers employed at the ATO, this doesn't happen.


----------



## Prospector (7 May 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> It would certainly have added to costs but whether or not these were passed on to consumers (as they should be) or absorbed by the tradespeople (which they shouldn't be doing) is another matter.




Yes, these costs should have been passed on, but do you remember when the GST was introduced, business were threatened with DIRE consequences if their prices rose as a result.  Consequently, they were just too scared to pass on the REAL costs of implementation of the GST for fear of punishment.

I received a very threatening letter from the ATO, but when I rang them to query the letter, in a state of panic I might add, it was their system's mistake. All BAS are scanned, and if the scan isnt clear (as was the case with mine), it puts incorrect figures into the computer. Then the ATO sends you a threatening letter saying you havent paid enough GST back.  This took me about an hour of MY TIME to sort out ATO's mistake, but who pays for that time?  I do.  Apologies - Nope :swear: 

So always keep a copy of every BAS because the ATO systems are just bad. And they assume you are in the wrong!


----------



## Julia (7 May 2006)

Prospector,

Re your signature:  you're getting awfully picky about what you want amongst the stuff that comes out of the ground!  Don't say no to the nickel - it can buy you some diamonds.  Look at the bigger picture:  even some coal could go towards your desired diamonds and gold if there was enough of it!

Cheers
Julia

(*Apologies for going off topic)


----------



## Prospector (7 May 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Prospector,
> 
> Re your signature:  you're getting awfully picky about what you want amongst the stuff that comes out of the ground!  Don't say no to the nickel - it can buy you some diamonds.  Look at the bigger picture:  even some coal could go towards your desired diamonds and gold if there was enough of it!
> 
> ...





OK, is that better now?


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Yes, these costs should have been passed on, but do you remember when the GST was introduced, business were threatened with DIRE consequences if their prices rose as a result.  Consequently, they were just too scared to pass on the REAL costs of implementation of the GST for fear of punishment.



A valid point which shows that this government doesn't mind interfeering with business in order to hide the effects of its' policies. A bit those rather blatant hints to the RBA a couple of years ago after interest rates rose.


----------



## mista200 (14 May 2006)

Honestly guys who gives a flying **** about who kim beazley or john howard is .....at the end of the its not gonna make much difference to our lives with whoever it is...

peace


----------



## The Mint Man (14 May 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> Honestly guys who gives a flying **** about who kim beazley or john howard is .....at the end of the its not gonna make much difference to our lives with whoever it is...
> 
> peace




Ha! How doesn't it? Love to see your answer!!!


----------



## rederob (14 May 2006)

mista200 said:
			
		

> Honestly guys who gives a flying **** about who kim beazley or john howard is .....at the end of the its not gonna make much difference to our lives with whoever it is...



Mista
If you don't vote - and you don't - you are dead right.
So stop wasting our time with posts that dig you into a deeper grave.


----------



## Happy (19 May 2006)

Report from ABC:
“Barcaldine Tree of Knowledge poisoned
The historic Tree of Knowledge in the central western Queensland town of Barcaldine has been poisoned. 
The ghost gum is symbolic of the Australian Labor Party, which was founded in the town. 
Barcaldine Mayor Rob Chandler says it appears someone has poured about 30 litres of chemicals over the tree's roots.
A tree doctor is assessing the damage and Mr Chandler says the community is very upset.
"The Tree of Knowledge is just part of our history, it's part of Australia's history," he said.
"It's from those meetings under that tree that the Australian Labor Party was formed back in 1891 and it's a very very important part of Queensland and Australia's history." 
“



Hope Liberals have nothing to do with it.
They don’t have to make stunts like this to win next election, I think.


----------



## Julia (19 May 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> Report from ABC:
> “Barcaldine Tree of Knowledge poisoned
> The historic Tree of Knowledge in the central western Queensland town of Barcaldine has been poisoned.
> The ghost gum is symbolic of the Australian Labor Party, which was founded in the town.
> ...





That's just a dreadful thing to do.  It was a beautiful tree, regardless of its political associations.

Julia


----------



## smoothsatin (30 August 2006)

As an economist and keen media analyst, i am consistantly dissapointed with peoples claim that the Libs are great economic managers.......what do people think this term means? 

Almost any economist will agree with this and say, based on the previous 30 years of economic policy from both sides, that labour is far better at managing the economy and implementing policy to facilitate economic growth than the Libs.

It was labor who had the courage to seriously cut tariffs, invest in infrastructure, float the AUD, deregulate our backward socialist economy etc etc etc.

Do people realise that interest rates were lower when labor handed gov to liberal in 90s than when liberals handed to labor in the 80s? Indeed governments have very little influence over interest rates anyway? Although two key reasons why RBA has increased rates have been excessive credit growth and capacity constraints, both of these have been adversly effected by this governments irresponsible policys and lack thereof.

The libs are simply lucky, sponging off policy decisions made 20 years ago, currently they are losing an opportunity to increase the countrys capacity, but choose short term politically popular fixes, they simply add to the problem long term. The GST is the only decent policy i can think that the libs have come up with. Very efficient way to gain tax revenue, but tends to tax poorer people at a higher percentage (ie regressive) because they tend to save less/spend a higher % of their incomes.

I hope some people have read this,
Goodnight all, i am jumping off my soapbox....


----------



## Knobby22 (31 August 2006)

I have changed my vote to Labour federally.
Lately they have shown themselves to be poor managers  - 
I site - labour shortages
        - US free trade agreement
        - collapse of maufacturing
        - failure to monitor wheat trade adequately.
        - willingness to ignore information that does not meet party views.
        - 19th century labour policies that even internation right wing groups   predict will be deletarious to our economy.
         - failure to address housing bubble.

I don't know if Labour will be much better but it is definitely time for a change in the guard.


----------



## petee (31 August 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> I have changed my vote to Labour federally.
> Lately they have shown themselves to be poor managers  -
> I site - labour shortages
> - US free trade agreement
> ...



just a few thoughts..continually changing from one party to the other just leads to more problems..the debt australia has now is nothing compared to the missmanagement under labor and i mught at at the last election labor put in Latham who bankrupted the Liverpool council,lets face it Labor have no idea about anything..Labor apparently for the working class yet in their tem they had house mortgage rates at record levels(18%)hello working class ppl are the ones with the home mortgages   .....the union movement just wants workers to get higher and higher wages which will lead to more foreign workers coming here to work plus many companies continuing to source cheap labour overseas so this will lead to a massive drop in aussie wages in the long term and its the Labor party who support unions..my vote is clear..Labor will again bankrupt this country


----------



## billhill (31 August 2006)

> Almost any economist will agree with this and say, based on the previous 30 years of economic policy from both sides, that labour is far better at managing the economy and implementing policy to facilitate economic growth than the Libs.
> 
> It was labor who had the courage to seriously cut tariffs, invest in infrastructure, float the AUD, deregulate our backward socialist economy etc etc etc.
> 
> ...




Smoothsatin,
                  Good post. I think you point out the major differences between the liberal and labour governments. The liberals only seem to make policy that looks to winning them the next election, hence they generally have kept the ecconomy in good shape for the short term. But this lack of forward planning is starting to bite them with housing, water and skilled labour shortages. Labour on the other hand tend to overspend the buget to build essential infrastructure that will probably only have an impact long after their government is gone. So the shorter term ecconomic conditions under labour are not so good.

The government is a balancing act. You can't have it good all the time. Ecconomies need harder time in order to rebuild so they can effectively go into new growth phases. So labour will come in, overspend and probably create more difficult ecconomic condition but then set it up for the rapid growth and expansion under the liberals. Too long under either party leads to imbalances and the ecconomy will suffer for that. Its time for a change.


----------



## greggy (1 September 2006)

I feel that the liberals are better at handling the national economy and national security issues, whilst state labor govts are better at running state issues such as health and education.  If you look at recent election results , this has proved to be the case.  I for one am a swinging voter.


----------



## rederob (1 September 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> I feel that the liberals are better at handling the national economy *and national security issues*, whilst state labor govts are better at running state issues such as health and education.



Libs have botched Fiji, PNG, Solomon Islands and East Timor, then sucked in to Iraq.
That's an incredible record!


----------



## nioka (1 September 2006)

If you want change dont try and change the party, just change the pollies. Regardless of party just put the sitting member last.


----------



## FXST01 (1 September 2006)

The liberals have my vote because they are good for defence.


----------



## rederob (1 September 2006)

FXST01 said:
			
		

> The liberals have my vote because they are good for defence.



Absolutely agree.
Put them all on the front line with a rifle, etc.
Should go down well.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

Personally I liked Keating. 

But seriously Liberal without Howard, he's an embarrasment.

Labor seem to be a lost cause at the moment.


----------



## smoothsatin (1 September 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Absolutely agree.
> Put them all on the front line with a rifle, etc.
> Should go down well.




I am against violence in general, but i can't help agreeing with you on that one.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 September 2006)

petee said:
			
		

> Labor apparently for the working class yet in their tem they had house mortgage rates at record levels(18%)hello working class ppl are the ones with the home mortgages



I must point out that mortgage payments as a % of income are HIGHER now under the Liberals than when Labor had the 17% interest rates. Housing affordability is at generational lows. Not only are the interest payments higher, the capital to be repaid is about DOUBLE the amount (relative to income) that it was under Labor.

It's like buying something half price but then finding that you need 3 times as many of them to do the same job. It looks cheap but you're worse off overall.

Not that it has anything to do with either Liberal or Labor since interest rates are set by global markets. If John Howard had somehow wiped out the Current Account deficit then he might have some claim to encouraging low interest rates, but for obvious reasons Mr Howard carefully avoids discussion of that subject lest the words "banana republic" be mentioned.


----------



## smoothsatin (1 September 2006)

One last point on inteerst rates...guess the highest ever 90 bank bill rate in Australias history? over 21%...meaning a mortgage rate of 24%? perhaps a fraction higher? Who was treasurer at this point? Yep, you guessed it, John Howard in 1982...how did this labor = high interest rates thing ever start and why does 90% of the population blindly believe it?


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 September 2006)

smoothsatin said:
			
		

> how did this labor = high interest rates thing ever start and why does 90% of the population blindly believe it?



Key to politics - just keep saying it and pretty soon most will believe it.

All sides of politics do it, and much of what's said is far from the truth. That doesn't stop people believing it...

A few myths which have been pushed in this way by various groups:

"Ethanol will damage cars". Too much will, but not the 5 or 10% we're talking about.

"Water is scarce in Australia". Water is scarce in some parts of Australia, but the country as a whole has vast amounts of fresh water, most of it totally unused by man. It justifies all manner of water restrictions and price increases however.

"Real estate always goes up". Remember the early 1990's?

"Tasmania has surplus electricity". Annual demand - 10750 GWh versus long term production capability of 10250 GWh. A shortage rather than surplus. It took near total depletion of storages and front page photos in the newspapers to shoot down a myth that at one point formed the entire basis of a political party.

"Oil companies make huge profits". True in absolute $ terms, but in terms of profit per $ of sales the likes of Coca Cola leave the big oil companies for dead. No exploration, fire or tanker sinking risks for Coke either.

Lots of myths about the climate in Australian cities. A few facts (source ABS - in print so I don't have a link). These stats only cover capital cities.

    The city with the _lowest_ record high temperature is in fact Darwin, not Hobart. Adelaide has the highest recorded maximum.

    Rainfall - Darwin, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Melbourne, Canberra, Hobart, Adelaide in order from wettest to driest. Contrary to popular belief, Sydney and Brisbane both get nearly twice as much rain as Hobart or Melbourne. 

    Melbourne has the least amount of sunshine with Darwin having the most.

    Sydney has the highest average wind speed with Canberra being by far the lowest.


----------



## greggy (6 September 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Libs have botched Fiji, PNG, Solomon Islands and East Timor, then sucked in to Iraq.
> That's an incredible record!



Voters are not fools out there.  If the Fed Labor Party is so good, then how come they have not won since 1993.  The Libs, for better or worse, are part of the coalition of the willing along with Blair and Bush.  I can't see the Federal Labor Party doing any better on defence issues.


----------

