# Labor Tax Policy, where is it?



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

Since the Liberals introduced the new IR laws, Labor and the unions have been running a scare campaign against these laws, commonly known as the ‘your rights at work’ campaign.
But my question is this;
If Labor and the unions care so much about ‘your rights at work’ then why do they support a policy that would chip away at the very reason we all go to work? That reason being money! 
The policy I’m talking about is of course Wayne Swans (and Latham’s) tax policy which from what we have been told thus far is the one that Labor will take to the upcoming election. 
Obviously yesterday’s announcement on tax from the Liberals has shaken Rudd up a bit and he says that he will review the Liberals new tax policy and come to a conclusion on what to do in the lead up to the election. Excuse my language but what a wank that is! The simple fact is that Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan were attacked on this very issue months ago and they have had every chance to address it properly.

*Please note that the tax rates in the quote below don't include yesterday’s further tax cuts, so Labor has been well and truly behind on this issue for quite some time.*


> *Labor’s “Back To The Future” High Tax Policy*​Yesterday Labor’s Wayne Swan secretly distributed a document entitled “The Treasurer’s Economic Myths”.  He did not have the courage to post it on his website or release it publicly, where it might have been subjected to scrutiny.
> “Myth 6” reads: “The Treasurer claims that Labor doesn’t have a tax policy”.
> To rebut this “myth”, the document points out:
> *“In May 2005 Labor outlined its alternative tax plan”*
> ...



here is the Liberals new tax policy announced yesterday, oh and I have to say thank you to trinity because I stole this from your thread



If Labor take their current tax policy to the polls and win the election then nothing will stop them from bringing it into force in the future. It will be a good way for a Labor federal government to make a quick buck if things go a bit pear shaped!

Discuss.

Cheers


----------



## Rafa (16 October 2007)

Patience Mint Man, Patience...


The mid year economic budget was reviewed and its findings released on Monday showing an extra 50odd billion flowing into the govt. kitty... and 2 hours later the Liberals release their new tax policy... which showed exactly how to spend that 50bill that wasn't there two hours ago.

Hmm...
They obviously new it was coming, but thats the bonus of being the incumbent govt with the resources of treasury...

Wouldn't expect Labor to have an alternate plan, with this NEW money, for a few more weeks...


----------



## >Apocalypto< (16 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Since the Liberals introduced the new IR laws, Labor and the unions have been running a scare campaign against these laws, commonly known as the ‘your rights at work’ campaign.
> But my question is this;
> If Labor and the unions care so much about ‘your rights at work’ then why do they support a policy that would chip away at the very reason we all go to work? That reason being money!
> The policy I’m talking about is of course Wayne Swans (and Latham’s) tax policy which from what we have been told thus far is the one that Labor will take to the upcoming election.
> ...




Mint Man,

I am voting Liberal,

Rudd has nothing, all he dose is nit pick at the current with out really adding anything better.

I think labour will get in just on the fact of people could be looking for change. I sure hope they don't get in, sure the libs sent us to a war that had no right or meaning but hey they are doing a great job managing the economy. my


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

Rafa,
Patience you say? I think we have waited long enough!
Ive been waiting months for Labor to say something about tax. In fact I was going to post this thread up 2 months ago because Labor has been so hush hush about their tax policy, probably because its higher than the Liberals. But I suppose thats their plan right? dont say anything because we might screw up. 
How can we possibly vote in a Labor government? We dont even know what to expect! or should I say, we only know half the story.

My bet is that, once again, kevin Rudd will pull out the *Me Too* policy.

Anyway, my initial point was that Labor have a very out dated 2005 Tax policy. Why have they not updated it yet? They have had since 2005 to do so.
In the last 2 years they could have at least shown the initiative of updating their old tax policy. Instead they have shown lazyness and opted to mislead or not come clean to the public about their tax policy. I bet my bottom dollar that alot of people dont even know what Labors Tax policy currently is.

Cheers


----------



## IFocus (16 October 2007)

There’s no doubt the tax system needs real reform which tax’s cuts do not really address

Injecting $34bil into an economy already on inflation alert to me seems odd unless you just don’t care about interest rates or longer term trends.

Considering the amount of serious infrastructure that’s needed around this country to support the future generation continue real economic growth I struggle with the short term greed give me the money now tax cut mentality which is no doubt a vote getter.

To me it’s purely opportunistic politics and disparate at that not a long term plan carefully thought out using the full resources of a government, pity because it tarnishes Costello. 

Focus


----------



## nioka (16 October 2007)

Trade_It said:


> Mint Man,
> 
> I am voting Liberal,
> 
> Rudd has nothing, all he dose is nit pick at the current with out really adding anything better.




What about hospitals. You obviously haven't used them lately. What about trade training in schools. Obviously you haven't needed a tradesman lately. You obviously haven't a grandson trying to bargain in the workplace. I have had considerable experience with those 3 recently and that is enough to make me favour Rudd without remembering all or any of Howards deceit. Howard has nothing to offer apart from tax cuts which must be made at the expense of nation building infrastructure.

I am not voting liberal.


----------



## YELNATS (16 October 2007)

IFocus said:


> There’s no doubt the tax system needs real reform which tax’s cuts do not really address
> 
> Injecting $34bil into an economy already on inflation alert to me seems odd unless you just don’t care about interest rates or longer term trends.
> 
> ...




Very good post, I concur on all points, especially as these resources are needed to increase infrastructure to help our exports and to make us more internationally competitive. For example, what about improving the dreadful shipping services for coal exports from Newcastle? 

The coalition's tax policy looks inflationary leading the RBA to increase interest rates further, which would no doubt bring howls of protest and derision from the Howard/Costello quarter.

Hopefully the ALP policy when it is released may be more responsible.

Just my  worth.


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

nioka said:


> What about hospitals.



last time I checked the labor states run these


----------



## trinity (16 October 2007)

I am quite undecided.  I am a 3 yr old migrant and, I do not understand which area falls under which jurisdiction.  Such as hospitals, Federal or State's responsibility?

Much to my concern is on housing affordability and economic outlook. What say both parties regarding housing affordability?  

Under which government would the economy be better off?


----------



## Rafa (16 October 2007)

I hope Labor doesn't do a me-too becuase this tax policy released is typical of howards previous policies... focused on bribes, with no real reform...

The tax systems is screwed, its a diabolically complex, and needs a major overhaul, not just a reduction in tax scales 

I would like to see a massive simplification of the tax system, three tax scales...
tax free, 15% and 30%... thats it.

It will save a hell of a lot of money wasted in accounting fees and all these companies, trusts, etc...


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

trinity said:


> I am quite undecided.  I am a 3 yr old migrant and, I do not understand which area falls under which jurisdiction.  Such as hospitals, Federal or State's responsibility?
> 
> Much to my concern is on housing affordability and economic outlook. What say both parties regarding housing affordability?
> 
> Under which government would the economy be better off?



If your only 3 years old then you can't vote, but for 3 you have great spelling...  just kidding.
Hospitals are state, roads are mostly state, rail is state. NSW fail on all.
I think that when it comes to the economy the Liberals win hands down.
As for housing that is a tricky issue. It will take more than a silver bullet quick fix policy


----------



## nioka (16 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> last time I checked the labor states run these




Better check again. Liberals have reduced their share hospital funding, Rudd says he will fix them in cooperation with the states. Major roads are federally funded. Road and Rail need massive amounts of federal money. You must agree on trade training. You are confused as you said.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 October 2007)

nioka said:


> You must agree on trade training. You are confused as you said.




We really are paying a terrible price for the shellacking in terms of funding the education system got (or didn't get), in the late 90s and so far into the 00s. And that is at all levels of education, but especially post-school.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 October 2007)

nioka said:


> Better check again. Liberals have reduced their share hospital funding, Rudd says he will fix them in cooperation with the states. Major roads are federally funded. Road and Rail need massive amounts of federal money. You must agree on trade training. You are confused as you said.




The Trade system also runs in Federal money (or lack of).


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

nioka said:


> Better check again. Liberals have reduced their share hospital funding, Rudd says he will fix them in cooperation with the states. Major roads are federally funded. Road and Rail need massive amounts of federal money. You must agree on trade training. You are confused as you said.



Rubbish nioka. The simple fact is that Labor run these.  If they were any good at budgets then the hospitals wouldn't be in such a state of crisis. 
I dont know about any other state but in NSW the hospitals and roads (roads in my area anyway) are up to ****.


----------



## professor_frink (16 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> I dont know about any other state but in NSW the hospitals and roads (roads in my area anyway) are up to ****.




Having spent quite a bit of time travelling around the central coast in a truck, I can't disagree with that at all.Not much fun!

But that's not a party issue. On a state level, the libs would ignore the central coast just as much as labour do. If it's not in Sydney, it won't get much attention.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (16 October 2007)

work choices and tax cuts go hand in hand. Where most people on low wages won't be getting wage increases anywhere near inflation the tax cuts will bumb up their take home cash thus effectively bringing up their wages. If we had large wages increases and tax cuts then we would fuel inflation. 

I wasn't around when the labour gov of hawke and keating were in with high interest rates etc. But from what i gather economic conditions in australia are largely dictated by the economic conditions of the world (since we are such a small player) And the role of gov is to make the best out of whatever situation we are in. Keating and hawke did bring in alot of reforms which were painful at the time but built a good base for current economic prosperity. Floating the dollar etc.

My point is that it would be pretty difficult to stuff up the Oz economy atm with our commodity boom and the labour gov of WA and QLD seem to be doing very well.


----------



## ROE (16 October 2007)

The rich and upper middle class Vote liberals the poor and middle class vote labor .... 

you can clearly see Liberal favor the one that has the cash and the one that own the business 

fairly simple choice really depending on what camp you in, you know where to vote

The trick is for the Liberal to convince the poor that they can become rich like Liberal supporters if they vote for them ..
they may buy into it cos the poor need $$$ and see $$$ blinking and how they doing it?
round 1. Tax cut more $$$ in your pockets


----------



## trinity (16 October 2007)

> If your only 3 years old then you can't vote, but for 3 you have great spelling...  just kidding.
> Hospitals are state, roads are mostly state, rail is state. NSW fail on all.
> I think that when it comes to the economy the Liberals win hands down.
> As for housing that is a tricky issue. It will take more than a silver bullet quick fix policy




Doh!  I meant, have been here in Oz for only 3 years.  :

Not looking for a quick fix on the housing issue, e.g. rent-fix would be stupid IMHO.  However, there was an instance that Labor was proposing a "super annuation" type of fund for first home buyers, encourage first home buyers to save, with less tax on that fund, and fund can only be used for purchase of first home.  I wonder what happened to that, just fizzled out.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2007)

IFocus said:


> There’s no doubt the tax system needs real reform which tax’s cuts do not really address
> 
> Injecting $34bil into an economy already on inflation alert to me seems odd unless you just don’t care about interest rates or longer term trends.
> 
> ...



I contend that inflation is precisely what Howard wants given its been his government's primary means of maintaining a booming economy.

Inflation is always popular in the early stages. It's the latter stages where it all goes pear shaped and ordinary people can't afford to live anymore - we're seeing the beginnings of those nasty effects now with real estate. Just wait until it's at the checkout and with every bill you get. History says that's exactly what's coming and it's not as far off as many may hope.


----------



## wayneL (16 October 2007)

ROE said:


> The rich and upper middle class Vote liberals the poor and middle class vote labor ....



Nope. That may have applied 100 years ago, but not today.

The richest guys in WA were (back in the day) all labor. WA Inc. anyone? 

Bond, Connell et al, all actively promoted Labor. I also know many highbrows who vote Labor on ideological/sociological  grounds. I have a friend who is now earning 7 figures (b@stard ), he votes Labor.


Transversely, many blue collar employees and subbies vote Liberal.

Go figure.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Nope. That may have applied 100 years ago, but not today.
> 
> The richest guys in WA were (back in the day) all labor. WA Inc. anyone?
> 
> ...



I agree. I don't think these stereotypes apply as much these days. Professionals are as likely to vote Liberal for economic reasons as they are Labor for ethical/ compassionate reasons.

It's got more to do with ideological grounds now moreso than social status or socio-economic factors these days...


----------



## Agentm (16 October 2007)

i see it as  policy that is long term, two terms, and a lot can happen in those terms, i would have like to have seen this policy put into parliament already and given out a long time ago, and for it to be LAW.  its merely an election stunt, not a plan for the future, there has been no in depth studies here on this, no real understandings of the impact of 34billion on the economy will have in terms of real future growth for the nation, just a politician saying "trust me, its going to be ok!!"  spending high in the face of increasing interest rates is not in my view balanced good management.

with outclauses like, Mr costello saying, "johnny put this up, we think its not responsible governement now the economic climate has changed, so we will defer this indefinately for the next few years,, sorry"

desperation. and believe it or not, it will be a mammoth vote winner..and no doubt a labor "me too" will follow.. this is very unsettling days, roaring 20's senarios.. the economy is bullet proof!!

so health and education gets kicked in head so all can spend the economy into perhaps an interest rate increase. then god knows what else. 

we have a media that loves the hand outs, and no balanced counter opinion coming out on any of these policies.. the circus will go on...


----------



## Happy (16 October 2007)

Giving back money in tax cuts is to me irresponsible.

Mentioned billions could be quite handy to solve problem or two, like hospitals, education, water, maybe some roads too.

Or simply money could be put away for bad times.

Also, claiming that Labor has no experience in managing country doesn’t cut with me either, because in 3, 6 or 9 years they will even have less.
Does it mean that they should have a crack at it 3 years each in turns?

Having said all that, I am not in Labor corner either.

I have feeling that neither has deep down our country in their hearts.

Their whiskers are on election or re-election.


----------



## Rafa (16 October 2007)

i hope labor don't just me-too this, becuase this tax package is a joke...

the tax system needs an overhaul, not a change in thresholds and tax rates... companies and individuals should both have 30% as the top tax rate.

with close to 50b to play with, and another 3 weeks before labor releases its tax policy, this is a chance to fix the tax system once and for all...


----------



## Julia (16 October 2007)

I'm completely opposed to tax cuts.  The amounts available to individuals would make little real difference in overall cost of living, whilst the amount as a whole could do so much to fund e.g. a dental care plan as an add-on to Medicare, more training for all medical personnel including nurses, lower HECS fees, etc etc.  The list is endless.

I would prefer the spending to be on the above infrastructure also in terms of social cohesion.  By offering tax cuts to individuals it is endorsing the growing trend of individual "OK-ness" at the expense of a more inclusive and caring society.


----------



## Nyden (16 October 2007)

Julia said:


> I'm completely opposed to tax cuts.  The amounts available to individuals would make little real difference in overall cost of living, whilst the amount as a whole could do so much to fund e.g. a dental care plan as an add-on to Medicare, more training for all medical personnel including nurses, lower HECS fees, etc etc.  The list is endless.
> 
> I would prefer the spending to be on the above infrastructure also in terms of social cohesion.  By offering tax cuts to individuals it is endorsing the growing trend of individual "OK-ness" at the expense of a more inclusive and caring society.




I believe the reason this is happening - is the simple fact that the world is growing.

Society is no longer a tight-knit community; there are now too many people to regulate. I would personally prefer a tax-cut, as opposed to free dental for the less fortunate. 

There's been too much of a trend these days; of the working people fixing the problems of those who don't - "the dole" is a perfect example of this.

If we want more money for public health care, education, & the likes - take it from those who just wish to further benefit; the ones too lazy to work.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 October 2007)

Nyden said:


> I believe the reason this is happening - is the simple fact that the world is growing.
> 
> Society is no longer a tight-knit community; there are now too many people to regulate. I would personally prefer a tax-cut, as opposed to free dental for the less fortunate.
> 
> ...




WTF???

So you are actually wanting a return to Dickensian times with poor houses?


----------



## Whiskers (16 October 2007)

Julia said:


> I'm completely opposed to tax cuts.




I like tax cuts. 

But, this time I have to say I'm thinking that it is just another cash handout promise to buy votes again. I'm inclined to think it's far more about political expediency than the good of the country.



> The amounts available to individuals would make little real difference in overall cost of living, whilst the amount as a whole could do so much to fund e.g. a dental care plan as an add-on to Medicare, more training for all medical personnel including nurses, lower HECS fees, etc etc.  The list is endless.
> 
> I would prefer the spending to be on the above infrastructure also in terms of social cohesion.  By offering tax cuts to individuals it is endorsing the growing trend of individual "OK-ness" at the expense of a more inclusive and caring society.




When it's all boilded down the cutting back of the school dental health scheme and lower real health funding etc by the fed government has contributed to the big surplus.

I for one would much prefer some resources put back into our health and education systems in particular. But also our national highways and ports desperately need upgrading.


----------



## Nyden (16 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> WTF???
> 
> So you are actually wanting a return to Dickensian times with poor houses?




No 


I think I came of a little harsh there! I tend to associate all the less fortunate with my no-hoper of a brother. Hopped up on drugs, hardly working a day in his life; getting money for nothing from the government, makes me sick.

I do agree that the health care system needs improvements - but, a lot of people are struggling these days in a lot of aspects ; isn't it more fair to ease their burden, allow them to live richer lives - and to let *caring* be a voluntary decision, and not mandatory?


----------



## chops_a_must (16 October 2007)

Nyden said:


> a lot of people are struggling these days in a lot of aspects ; isn't it more fair to ease their burden, allow them to live richer lives - and to let *caring* be a voluntary decision, and not mandatory?



How do you mean?

This is a pretty vague statement...


----------



## Nyden (16 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> How do you mean?
> 
> This is a pretty vague statement...





Well - as someone else mentioned in this thread - a lot of low paying jobs hardly keep up with inflation - tax cuts are something they need; not *only* for dental care & roads, but for bills, food, & the likes.

Why should they be forced to miss out on a possible tax cut? Why should *any* class of workers miss out on that?

Meanwhile ; if you don't work *at all* (the threshold for the health care concession card; is still fairly low pay), not only are you entitled to money from the government; but you're also entitled to free health care?

I realise it's way off topic - but, most countries don't offer unemployment benefits for the periods of time Australia does - that costs a lot of money. That money could be helping those even further who are at least on minimum wage; & if that was the case...obviously surplus could then be better used.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 October 2007)

Nyden said:


> Well - as someone else mentioned in this thread - a lot of low paying jobs hardly keep up with inflation - tax cuts are something they need; not *only* for dental care & roads, but for bills, food, & the likes.
> 
> Why should they be forced to miss out on a possible tax cut? Why should *any* class of workers miss out on that?
> 
> Meanwhile ; if you don't work *at all* (the threshold for the health care concession card; is still fairly low pay), not only are you entitled to money from the government; but you're also entitled to free health care?



You do realise most full time students will have a health care card, as well as people with chronic illness, such as those with juvenile diabetes don't you?

And yeah, tax cuts for the poor are the way to go. But that has hardly the way it has been under this regime.


----------



## Nyden (16 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> You do realise most full time students will have a health care card, as well as people with chronic illness, such as those with juvenile diabetes don't you?
> 
> And yeah, tax cuts for the poor are the way to go. But that has hardly the way it has been under this regime.




Is that under the current system, or is that what is to be implemented? Either way - I do believe in that. (Students, chronic suffers - should be entitled)


Well, it's hard not to be selfish though - even if you're an upper-class, it's hard not to want that tax-cut ; for the new boat that is.

Everybody likes something for nothing - a reward for hard work, positive reinforcement for working hard is important as well


----------



## nioka (16 October 2007)

Nyden said:


> Well - as someone else mentioned in this thread - a lot of low paying jobs hardly keep up with inflation - tax cuts are something they need;




Will they be better off with tax cuts AND work choices screwing their wage or no tax cuts and better paid jobs with Rudd. Anyway wait for Rudds tax policy which probably have tax cuts for them but not so much for the bigger end of town. There are those in the bigger end of town that would prefer, and be better off with, the money spent on the things Rudd is promising rather than tax cuts.


----------



## Nyden (16 October 2007)

nioka said:


> Will they be better off with tax cuts AND work choices screwing their wage or no tax cuts and better paid jobs with Rudd. Anyway wait for Rudds tax policy which probably have tax cuts for them but not so much for the bigger end of town. There are those in the bigger end of town that would prefer, and be better off with, the money spent on the things Rudd is promising rather than tax cuts.




I understand that you've been touched rather negatively by work choices Nioka?

I do sympathise with that ; but, I personally know a lot of people (not wealthy, but lower-middle class), that are actually much better off under Work-Choices.

I'm sure there are a lot of people here as well with similar opinions.


----------



## nioka (16 October 2007)

Nyden said:


> Well, it's hard not to be selfish though - even if you're an upper-class, it's hard not to want that tax-cut ; for the new boat that is.




 I need a new boat (having burnt the last one). I am counting on AGM and AUT getting me one rather than count on tax cuts. Oh forgot. I'm not upper class. Does that make a difference?


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

question;
Would the people rather pay the amount of tax that Labors policy would have you pay or the amount that Liberal would have you pay?
Because the two policies are currently worlds apart and as I have said before, Labor has had 2 years to put their policy in the ball park at the very least. There is no doubt that when it comes to the economy, especially tax policies, Labor stands on the sidelines hoping not to slip up. In fact I think they do this on almost everything.


----------



## nioka (16 October 2007)

Nyden said:


> I understand that you've been touched rather negatively by work choices Nioka?
> 
> I do sympathise with that ; but, I personally know a lot of people (not wealthy, but lower-middle class), that are actually much better off under Work-Choices.
> 
> I'm sure there are a lot of people here as well with similar opinions.




Definitely not. Haven't worked for a boss since 1960. Actually been on the other side and appreciate the problems some of my staff had and how they struggled.
 I,m sure some are better off under Work-choices but they are not the majority as I see it.


----------



## nioka (16 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> question;
> Would the people rather pay the amount of tax that Labors policy would have you pay or the amount that Liberal would have you pay?
> Because the two policies are currently worlds apart and as I have said before, Labor has had 2 years to put their policy in the ball park at the very least. There is no doubt that when it comes to the economy, especially tax policies, Labor stands on the sidelines hoping not to slip up. In fact I think they do this on almost everything.




Why should Labor show it's hand before the election is called or before the know the state of the economy at election time. The surplus was only known to them yesterday. You don't have to vote today. Wait and see what they have to say. If they act first Johnnie would trump them in some way, so it is fair enough to wait.


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

nioka said:


> Will they be better off with tax cuts AND work choices screwing their wage or no tax cuts and better paid jobs with Rudd.



Nioka,
My first point is, wages have gone up under Liberal and they will keep going up due to the low unemployment.
Secondly, labor and the unions have made every effort to tell Australia that we will have our wages slashed, our families will suffer due to this, the hospitals will lose staff, the sky will fall in etc. but in reality the IR laws have been in for a while now and I have not met person that has been badly affected by the IR laws, if anything big was going to happen it would have happened already. Sure there is the odd  bad employer and disgruntled employees that Labor weed out to appear on their adds but this is in no way representative of the general population.


----------



## Rafa (16 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> question;
> Would the people rather pay the amount of tax that Labors policy would have you pay or the amount that Liberal would have you pay?
> Because the two policies are currently worlds apart and as I have said before,




We will talk about labors tax policy when they release one Mint Man...

Talking about labor's tax policy is like talking about Nick Minchins  presentation to the H R Nichols society for making work choices even more extreme.... Minchin and Costello are on the record for bemoaning work choices didn't go far enough! 


So we will leave both aside... let just focus on what we have...


At this stage, all we have is the Liberal's tax poliicy, at to me, it looks like nothing more that an election bribe... no fundamental reform, just tinkering around the edges...

And they have had some of the most favourable economic conditions, and now a massive 50billion dollar windfall to try something that would truly make a difference.... and have failed yet again...

In the mean time, as others have mentioned, infrastructure, health and education falls by the way side...

Where is a proper rail network to trasport good across the continent in bulk, freeing up highways of the trucks...? the same can be said for shipping infrastructure... Both incidentally are a lot less polluting... This will never happen cause the liberals are in the pockets of the trucking magnates.

Where is the proper communications network for all of australia? again, somethig that can be used to reduced pollution, requiring few car / plane trips.

What about the problems with water, electricity, etc...?

So, either fix the tax system, or invest in infrastructure, health and education... The policy released on Monday does neither. Very disasspointing  effort from the self professed saviours of the Australian economy...


----------



## chops_a_must (16 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Nioka,
> My first point is, wages have gone up under Liberal and they will keep going up due to the low unemployment.
> Secondly, labor and the unions have made every effort to tell Australia that we will have our wages slashed, our families will suffer due to this, the hospitals will lose staff, the sky will fall in etc. but in reality the IR laws have been in for a while now and I have not met person that has been badly affected by the IR laws, if anything big was going to happen it would have happened already. Sure there is the odd  bad employer and disgruntled employees that Labor weed out to appear on their adds but this is in no way representative of the general population.




You obviously didn't even glance at my other post, where I explained talking to someone who had been sacked because he chose to go on his teaching prac; did you?

That's pretty amoral.


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> We will talk about labors tax policy when they release one Mint Man...
> So we will leave both aside... let just focus on what we have



Labor does have a tax policy Rafa, they pointed this out themselfs way back in June. I think you need to re-read my initial post. 
Here Ill save you the time.


> *Labor’s “Back To The Future” High Tax Policy​*Yesterday Labor’s Wayne Swan secretly distributed a document entitled “The Treasurer’s Economic Myths”. He did not have the courage to post it on his website or release it publicly, where it might have been subjected to scrutiny.
> “Myth 6” reads: “The Treasurer claims that Labor doesn’t have a tax policy”.
> To rebut this “myth”, the document points out:
> *“In May 2005 Labor outlined its alternative tax plan”*If this plan is Labor’s alternative then it would leave every worker on more than $10,000 per annum worse off.
> ...




Rafa, while most of us would expect Labor to release a NEW and updated version of their tax policy (the operative word being their) they are yet to do so let just focus on what we have!


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> You obviously didn't even glance at my other post, where I explained talking to someone who had been sacked because he chose to go on his teaching prac; did you?
> 
> That's pretty amoral.




What post are you talking about Chops? I cant find the post your talking about


----------



## --B-- (16 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> You obviously didn't even glance at my other post, where I explained talking to someone who had been sacked because he chose to go on his teaching prac; did you?
> 
> That's pretty amoral.




id like to know the specifics as this explanation is quite vague.

people were sacked pre-workchoices and will be sacked with workchoices in place.

imo, providing vague anecdotal evidence is hardy compelling evidence against the legislation.


----------



## Rafa (16 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Labor does have a tax policy Rafa, they pointed this out themselfs way back in June. I think you need to re-read my initial post.
> Here Ill save you the time.
> 
> 
> Rafa, while most of us would expect Labor to release a NEW and updated version of their tax policy (the operative word being their) they are yet to do so let just focus on what we have!




Rubbish, you know full well that the new budget figures only came out on Monday, and you know full well that Labor has said that they will, like John Howard in 96, release a NEW tax policy 2-3 weeks from election date...

So, are you just liberal party stooge and gonna keep repeating, like the rest of the liberal party, '_we have released ours, wheres yours..._'

OR 

Are you interested in actually discussing merits of the policy and whether its good for the country...???


You do realise, anyone can release a policy... the policy has to actually be 'good'!


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

--B-- said:


> id like to know the specifics as this explanation is quite vague.
> 
> people were sacked pre-workchoices and will be sacked with workchoices in place.
> 
> imo, providing vague anecdotal evidence is hardy compelling evidence against the legislation.




Even though I havn't seen the post he is speaking of, I can't agree with you more B.
There are always two sides to the story and as I said before there are a few bad employers out there just as there are bad employees.


----------



## --B-- (16 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> Rubbish, you know full well that the new budget figures only came out on Monday, and you know full well that Labor has said that they will, like John Howard in 96, release a NEW tax policy 2-3 weeks from election date...
> 
> So, are you just liberal party stooge and gonna keep repeating, like the rest of the liberal party, '_we have released ours, wheres yours..._'
> 
> ...




do you think Labor should have revised its tax policy since 2005 Rafa?

Wayne Swan used this apparently outdated policy in an effort to refute the claim that they have no tax policy. What does that say?

The fact that a revised budget surplus has recently emerged is hardly relevant when you consider their policy has not been revised since 2005.

It seems to me that this is more of the same from St Kev - ie: make it up as we go along - "me too" policies... 

it wouldnt surprise me to see Rudd introduce a new committee to deal with taxation....


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2007)

A challenge to both major parties. Slightly off topic but consumer spending and tax are pretty closely related for most.

Construct a Consumer Price Index that is based on actual real world spending of consumers as recorded in sales statistics. And do so with no nonsense about eating hamburger because it's cheaper than steak, no nonsense about buying half a TV because the quality has improved, and certainly no nonsense about charging yourself rent on your own property. Just use the actual cost of the same size steak, whatever consititutes a mid-range TV at the time and the price of an average house + land.

Then, and here's the real challenge, pass laws requiring that anyone doing the same job, working the same hours with the same level of productivity can not see their purchasing power decline unless due to exceptional circumstances (eg company loses a major contract, poor season for crops and so on).

It seems very reasonable to me - in the technological era in which we live, why should anyone expect their hourly income as measured by what it can purchase to decline? It ought to be going up in purchasing power not down otherwise the past 25 years of economic reform have been largely pointless.

What's wrong with the CPI we have now? In short, it just isn't credible to see house prices triple having no observable effect on CPI and everything (including many wages) based upon it whilst a banana price boom is a virtual economic emergency. We're not monkeys...


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> Rubbish, you know full well that the new budget figures only came out on Monday, and you know full well that Labor has said that they will, like John Howard in 96, release a NEW tax policy 2-3 weeks from election date...



In fact I didn't know that Labor had said that they would release a tax policy 2-3 weeks out from the election, when did they say that. Quote please?
Rudd has steered clear of the media as much as possible in the lead up to the election, no wonder the average Australian dosn't know exactly where Labor stands. It only ever seems that he comes out to play when he is forced to. It is also all over the media that Kevin Rudd was caught off guard when the Liberals announced their updated tax policy yesterday. 
If they were going to bring on their own tax policy all along then why not scream it from the roof tops now? they should say 'we will release our tax policy in 3 weeks' not ' oh we will review the liberals one' 
No one knows where they stand Rafa!

As for your remark about me being a Liberal stooge. I’m sick of reading posts from you claiming to be in the middle or saying that you reserve your right to vote for liberal, making out your swinging voter. But after reading alot of your posts in other political threads it’s quite obvious that you’re a Labor supporter because every time someone has something bad to say about Labor you’re on the defensive. It has to be said that your similar to Rudd/Labor by calling me a liberal stooge.... it's a bit like Rudd saying that this election campaign will be full of scare tactics from the Liberals yet every night and day for over a year now we have had to sit through union/labor backed advertisements saying how bad the liberal government is and basically saying that we had better watch out if they get in again.

A bit hypocritical dont you think?

Cheers


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

--B-- said:


> do you think Labor should have revised its tax policy since 2005 Rafa?
> 
> Wayne Swan used this apparently outdated policy in an effort to refute the claim that they have no tax policy. What does that say?
> 
> ...



Thank God... 
at least someone can read between the lines


----------



## Rafa (16 October 2007)

--B-- said:


> do you think Labor should have revised its tax policy since 2005 Rafa?




NO... Howards didn't do it either in 1996

When your in opposition, you don't know the figures till the election is called and then the treasury, under the charter of budget honesty, has to give both parties the same set of numbers...



the thing i am saying, is we can continuing arguing on what should happen and what shouldn't... but what is the point of that!

why don't we actually discuss what was released yesterday... the Liberal Tax Policy that they are taking to the next election?

When Labour releases theirs, and they have repeatedly promised one 2-3 weeks before the election, (so the 2005 tax policy is null and void) we can then critique that one... 

How does that sound? Reasonable enough for you???


OH yes... and Mint Man... As far as the 2007 election goes... I am 100% Labour.


----------



## --B-- (16 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> How does that sound? Reasonable enough for you???




that sounds perfectly reasonable Rafa, however as the thread title is quite specific, i think its also reasonable to discuss the Labor party's apparent lack of any recent tax policy.


----------



## Rafa (16 October 2007)

--B-- said:


> that sounds perfectly reasonable Rafa, however as the thread title is quite specific, i think its also reasonable to discuss the Labor party's apparent lack of any recent tax policy.




Yes, we all know that... what is there to discuss...?

Yes, it would have been good if they had a tax policy earlier, but what is the point, its not like it can be implemented, and most likely, it can be copied...

And the goal posts move anyway come election time when the treasury are forced to release to the opposition the true financial figures... 

How can you have a detailed policy, when you don't even know what your financial situation is?


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

I was just listening to kevin Rudd on 2GB and all he said on tax was that they are going over the 200 odd page document and how that takes time blah blah blah. full of sweet nothings really.
From my recollection he said nothing about a revised labor tax policy in a few weeks. Thats all I was looking for but didn't get it.

Cheers


----------



## BSD (16 October 2007)

Announcing in-advance the handing back of three years of bracket creep is hardly bold reform. 

Laughable really. Why do you think the Libs are banging on about the timing of Labor's policy rather than trumpeting the forsight of their own policy?

Perhaps they know that $20 a week isn't a real big vote winner or a great piece of economic reform.  

Labor can come up with their retort in their own time, just as J Ho was able to call the election at a time that suits.  

How come Johnny and Cossie haven't mentioned interest rates yet?


----------



## Rafa (16 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> He said nothing about a revised labor tax policy in a few weeks. Thats all I was looking for but didn't get it.
> Cheers




Mint Man, I have heard him say this in the past... And I am expecting one..

Let me just say this, if Rudd doesn't release one 2-3 weeks before the election, I will be extremely disappointed... 

And I am already on the record as saying that I will be very disappointed if he simply me-too's the liberal one... or if simply does a tinkering job similar to what the liberals have just done, which doens't to anything to actually simplify the tax system...

What I would like to hear is this:
If the liberals get in, labor will support it, but if labour gets in, this is our alternate proposal for simplified tax system

Naturally, this is going to take a lot of guts, because if any little group is going to be worse off tax wise under the labour plan, as opposed to the liberal plan, its going to highlighted!


----------



## moXJO (16 October 2007)

nioka said:


> What about trade training in schools. Obviously you haven't needed a tradesman lately.I am not voting liberal.




Trade center in every school sounds like a massive waste of money and an on going waste of money. Wouldn’t a better option be to use the tafe collages considering they have all the equipment and a good percentage of trade classes are empty.


----------



## arminius (16 October 2007)

i dont want a tax cut.

i want all aussies to own the roads they drive on. 

why are we reliant on the chinese/ japanese to build infrastructure in the midewest WA?
 i want our govt to build it.  

i want my kids, and everyone elses, to be able to go to the best equiped hospital on the planet.  

shove ya 30 bucks up ya ar$e howard, then rub it in costellos face.


----------



## nioka (16 October 2007)

moXJO said:


> Trade center in every school sounds like a massive waste of money and an on going waste of money. Wouldn’t a better option be to use the tafe collages considering they have all the equipment and a good percentage of trade classes are empty.




 No. When I went to school I learnt woodwork and metalwork. I learnt to be handy at home at least. It could have gone on to a trade if I had chosen. My grand kids can use a computer but at everything else they are useless. There are not enough TAFE places but most teenagers have not been exposed to trades, they just try for grades to uni and by then it is too late to interest them in trades. These sort of things should start at high school.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Even though I havn't seen the post he is speaking of, I can't agree with you more B.
> There are always two sides to the story and as I said before there are a few bad employers out there just as there are bad employees.




Dude.

I repeated the post about 3 effen times.

I'm not going to do it again. It was in, I think, the Labor v Liberal thread.


----------



## Rafa (16 October 2007)

On that issue...

Why have we got another thread...???

We already have the Election thread, and the labor v lib thread, is labor good for the stock market, etc, etc...

If this thread only focused on tax policy, then thats fine... 
but this seems to be more a thread on how labour doesn't have a tax policy... so surely this could merge in with the election thread.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2007)

arminius said:


> i dont want a tax cut.
> 
> i want all aussies to own the roads they drive on.
> 
> ...



Very strongly agreed. 

It wasn't long ago that roads were just assumed to be publicly owned by Australians. The entire concept that they would be privately owned by foreigners just wasn't something anyone had ever needed to think about. We had perfectly good roads back then.

Likewise back in the 1980's we had more than enough water for the cities. Now every capital city except Hobart (not sure about Darwin) has a situation bordering on outright crisis. That's a consequence of decisions made, or more importantly NOT made, in the 1990's.

Electricity is much the same. A decade ago all was well and the generation side at least was practically bulletproof in every state. Fast forward to 2007 and it's been stretched to the point where one or two minor problems occur and the lights go out. The only real exceptions being Qld and Tas which, surprise surprise, didn't follow the "tomorrow will take care of itself" mantra of the past 15 years despite (in Tasmania's case at least) all manner of rather blunt threats directly from Howard over the issue.

Hospitals are another one. The Commonwealth, not the states, is the primary tax collector and thus is the level of government in a position to make a decision to increase funding. All the states can really do is take from one area (eg roads) to prop up another since they have limited ability (under the constitution) to raise sufficient revenue. Given the advances in medical technology and an aging population, it's ridiculous that the Medicare levy isn't increasing. 

Tax cut? Just give me anything that's left over once the basic infrastructure on which we all depend is fixed. Bottom line is I won't be paying any tax at all, since I won't be earning any money, if the grid goes down, the transport system doesn't work or I'm stuck waiting for serious medical treatment. The vast majority of Australians, especially those in the cities, would be in exactly the same position. 

Even agriculture doesn't work without ability to transport the produce (noting that fuel refining doesn't work without electricity which doesn't work without water.) We all depend on critical infrastructure in some way and it's what separates developed countries from the Third World. 

And that's without mentioning the environment. $50 billion would build one hell of a lot of renewable energy just as it would do an awful lot with roads, water, hospitals and so on. The ONLY reason not to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions is because doing so is expensive. That always was the only real argument against it since there's an awful lot that can be done with presently available technology and it's been that way since the 1980's when the issue first seriously arose. So on one hand we're crying poor whilst on the other we've got cash to throw around at, well, practically anything except something of long term benefit to the country.

Water pipes in Qld and WA? Solar hot water in every home? Fix the railways and the roads? Decent healthcare for EVERY Australian? All worth doing and all being stopped by nothing other than lack of money. And yet we've got plenty to throw around...


----------



## The Mint Man (16 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Dude.
> 
> I repeated the post about 3 effen times.
> 
> I'm not going to do it again. It was in, I think, the Labor v Liberal thread.



Chops,
You need to make yourself more clear when you said that you posted it before. It sounded like you were saying that you posted it in this thread, I think everyone else would agree on that. Perhaps you could consider providing a link in the future or at the very least a name of the thread and post number. makes things alot easier


> If this thread only focused on tax policy, then thats fine...



The other threads are more about who you will vote for or who you think is going to win, with polls attached.
This is a thread focused on tax policy and I dont think it should be merged with the other threads. Tax and economy policy will be a hot issue in the lead up to the election, this will be a good place to talk about those issues. 

Cheers


----------



## arminius (16 October 2007)

come on all you howard lovers, all those who think, 'better the devil you know', all those who think the vaunted liberals have done such a great job with the country's finances. 

reply to chops post! refute it. 
speak out against what chops and i have said. 
are we wrong?
come on now, defend your man!

treasury is rich, but the country is poor. 
we wont really feel it, but our grandkids certainly will. 

you wanna talk about the effin economy? take asian purchases out of the equation, rather take em back to '94 levels, and see how well the economy is going. 

some of you people cannot see the forrest for the trees. you disgust me.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 October 2007)

Howard's deficit

the opportunities for cyclical cynicism are endless


----------



## Rafa (16 October 2007)

its brilliant.... on the 7:30 report, they played clips of the 96 election..

1. Howard saying he's not going to be rushed into releasing his tax plan
2. Keating running adds saying the liberals are inexperienced and can't be trusted in govt

funny stuff... the same things repeated, now just with the sides switced...

the best thing to take of all this, is that in 6 weeks it will be over, and life will go on...


----------



## vishalt (16 October 2007)

Is Howard a nut? Giving tax cuts when inflation is almost rampant?

Give tax cuts and more people will keep spending and before you know it our interest rates will be at 10%. 

If anything tax rates should be increased so we stop spending and stop sending house prices through the roof!


----------



## nioka (16 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> The other threads are more about who you will vote for or who you think is going to win, with polls attached.
> This is a thread focused on tax policy and I dont think it should be merged with the other threads. Tax and economy policy will be a hot issue in the lead up to the election, this will be a good place to talk about those issues.
> 
> Cheers




Finally you have said something I agree with.


----------



## moXJO (16 October 2007)

nioka said:


> No. When I went to school I learnt woodwork and metalwork. I learnt to be handy at home at least. It could have gone on to a trade if I had chosen. My grand kids can use a computer but at everything else they are useless. There are not enough TAFE places but most teenagers have not been exposed to trades, they just try for grades to uni and by then it is too late to interest them in trades. These sort of things should start at high school.




Bull$$$$ its not addressing the problem at all .apprenticeships need to be made more attractive for both employer and apprentice. Not more half assed shop classes. Wasting resources on every school this way is stupidity.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 October 2007)

moXJO said:


> Bull$$$$ its not addressing the problem at all .apprenticeships need to be made more attractive for both employer and apprentice. Not more half assed shop classes. Wasting resources on every school this way is stupidity.



Yeah. There is absolutely no point in being an apprentice. Just slave labour...


----------



## BSD (16 October 2007)

moXJO said:


> Bull$$$$ its not addressing the problem at all .apprenticeships need to be made more attractive for both employer and apprentice. Not more half assed shop classes. Wasting resources on every school this way is stupidity.




Maybe it is about keeping 15 and 16 year-olds that have no interest/aptitude for academic pursuits in senior school and progressing in relevant training; rather than leaving school as babies and hanging around train stations etc?

Apprentices in recent times (as far as I have been told) are mainly "trained" as cheap labour-hire substitutes and have very limited skills/training compared to the past.

Pity the poor tradesman when this current property mania comes to an end.


----------



## nioka (16 October 2007)

moXJO said:


> Bull$$$$ its not addressing the problem at all .apprenticeships need to be made more attractive for both employer and apprentice. Not more half assed shop classes. Wasting resources on every school this way is stupidity.




 Wasting resources?. Learning french and art were a waste of resources in my time but I have never regreted learning how to solder, weld or make a dovetail joint. I agree that apprenticeships should be made more attractive but if you don't create interest in the early years then it will not happen. (In my case it would not have been much good retiring with a big shed and not knowing what it was for.)


----------



## moXJO (16 October 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Yeah. There is absolutely no point in being an apprentice. Just slave labour...




I'm all for pumping money into the education system ,just not wasting it on white elephants. Or in this case dumbing it down for a short term fix. What next... paddock out the back for the farmer shortage? Given the failure rate I've witnessed for blokes in the trade I don’t see how this would benefit anyone, except employers being flooded with cheap exploitable labour.

Once the mining boom ends the trades will fill out again on their own.


----------



## moXJO (16 October 2007)

BSD said:


> Maybe it is about keeping 15 and 16 year-olds that have no interest/aptitude for academic pursuits in senior school and progressing in relevant training; rather than leaving school as babies and hanging around train stations etc?
> 
> Apprentices in recent times (as far as I have been told) are mainly "trained" as cheap labour-hire substitutes and have very limited skills/training compared to the past.
> 
> Pity the poor tradesman when this current property mania comes to an end.




That’s what tafe is for. That and parenting.


----------



## BSD (16 October 2007)

moXJO said:


> That’s what tafe is for. That and parenting.




I guess I have a dim view of the ability of 15 yr olds to deal with the adult reality of going to TAFE and getting a job?

From the experience I have, kids at 15 and 16 are better off getting these skills in a school environment. 

Anyway what would a person who has only worked on an individual contract know? This issue is a drop in the bucket compared to the horrible pork barreling being rolled into marginal electorates to firm up the 'Battler Vote' for dishonest John. 

How much have we spent on illegal invasions and keeping refuges on Xmas island and Nauru for political purposes?


----------



## Julia (16 October 2007)

Nyden said:


> No
> 
> 
> I think I came of a little harsh there! I tend to associate all the less fortunate with my no-hoper of a brother. Hopped up on drugs, hardly working a day in his life; getting money for nothing from the government, makes me sick.
> ...




Nyden, you raise a genuine dilemma in terms of welfare.  Yes, there are many out there like your brother,making no effort to change their own situations and expecting the rest of us to look after them.  Those who simply don't want to work.  Into this category we can toss many young women who prefer to continue reproducing rather than consider working.  It no longer surprises me that many of these young women put the child into child care (taxpayer subsidised)as soon as it's a few months old.

But on the other hand, there are far more genuinely needy people who for whatever reason - mental illness, physical disability, victims of violence etc - who deserve our compassion and support.  Some of these people have lives which are indescribably sad and lonely.

So logistically, it's pretty impossible to have individual payment assessments for all of these people.  Hence the disparity and lack of fairness we see in the present system.  I can't see any government coming up with a genuine solution to the problem.  At least this government has moved to penalise people who repeatedly abuse the system and flout the rules.

I understand your reluctance to have your taxes prop up people who are simply not making an effort.  I feel the same.  But I hope to never be part of a society that deals with those people by penalising the others who most need our help and support.


----------



## moXJO (16 October 2007)

BSD said:


> I guess I have a dim view of the ability of 15 yr olds to deal with the adult reality of going to TAFE and getting a job?
> 
> From the experience I have, kids at 15 and 16 are better off getting these skills in a school environment.
> 
> ...




Hmmm most of my friends and I went through tafe at that age just fine. And none of my apprentices have ever had a problem. I don’t agree with this policy and think the money could be better spent. Half of your post is waffle about John hating that I've already read before.

Out of interest did posters schools have woodwork , metal work, or mechanics?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2007)

moXJO said:


> Bull$$$$ its not addressing the problem at all .apprenticeships need to be made more attractive for both employer and apprentice. Not more half assed shop classes. Wasting resources on every school this way is stupidity.



About to interview potential apprentices so I'll comment.

TAFE is only part of it. An apprentice will typically spend about 800 days on the job and 120 days at TAFE. They'll get most of their theory and a bit of practical training at TAFE but virtually all of their experience on the job. If you don't have both the TAFE and on the job experience then you don't have an apprenticeship and you don't produce a tradesperson. That's how it is for the electrical trades at least.

What needs to happen is for apprenticeships to become more attractive for the employer AND the apprentice. As it stands today, it's an expense for the employer that, if done well in terms of training the apprentice, isn't necessarily profitable. For the apprentice it's entering into a 4 year contract with very low pay, even lower status and an uncertain outcome as far as training is concerned. That's not the way to attract the best apprentices and make them the best tradespeople.

In most cases it's a choice between making it good for the employer or good for the apprentice, but not both. Since the employer has absolutely more influence over the outcome than does the apprentice, the end result is sub-standard training in order to minimise the cost and maximise the productive output of the apprentice unless the employer has some motivation to put effort into training other than immediate profit.

My own experience is that teaching apprentices some life skills (let's face it, they're generally straight out of school) and giving them the best training you can provide does make life rather hard for the boss / supervisor but it pays off in the long term. It comes down to respect on both sides and works well once you get it going. Requires a lot of effort from the boss / supervisor though and it's not cheap. 

Trouble is, most small contractors don't even know if they'll have ongoing work for themselves in 2 years time so they aren't going to commit to pouring a fortune into training someone who, on a net basis, will contribute nothing to productivity until at least second year and needs to be employed for 4 years to complete their training.

For smaller contractors especially, the range of work they have is also a major problem. There's no point training a plumber to only fit out new houses where nothing ever goes wrong. Even worse to train an electrician that way when much of the employment available for tradespersons requires sound fault finding skills (something many in the trade seriously lack IMO). 

In theory, group training is a solution to the broadening of experience problem. But it just doesn't work to send your apprentice elsewhere for 3 months in 2nd and 3rd year to broaden their experience when you're a small business with work that needs doing today, not next year. It's even worse when you end up still paying their wages when they're working for someone else (because nobody will take them otherwise in some situations), especially if that someone else is a rival contractor bidding for your work. 

Giving them them proper projet management experience is another one - small contractors can't afford stuff ups so won't take the risk. And many supervisors in larger organisations are too worried about covering their own backside so won't take the risk either. Done properly it works however but again it's anything but easy.

Another one is the attitude of other tradespersons to training apprentices. Some see it as a case of the less competition, the better. Hence they won't go out of the way to train anyone unless forced to and even then they're more likley to use them than train them. Others have the totally opposite view and will go to extraordinary lengths to train apprentices. That comes down to personal attitude.

NOTHING about training apprentices is easy if the aim is to maximise the potential of the apprentice. And that's without mentioning all the hassles that come with the reality that they are commencing an apprenticeship at the same time they're commencing with cars, money, alcohol and the opposite sex.

Much of this comes down to the uncertainty of work in general these days. A large organisation doing its own work on its own assets knows with reasonable certainty how busy their tradespeople will be in 2 years time. A large contractor can reasonably assume they'll have some work even if they don't know what it will be.

But a smaller contractor where the office is a folder kept in the glove box and a laptop on the back seat has no such certainty. And with the changes of the past 15 years such contractors are now doing a much larger share of trades work than was once the case. That's the ultimate cause of the problems we have today IMO. Such contractors traditionally employed people trained by large business and government. Now they're expected to do the training themselves and they just aren't set up for it (and can't be expected to be).

There's nothing wrong with small contractors, but big business, utilities and government always have been better placed to take on the risks associated with a 4 year committment to training. That's a situation well understood where I worked back in the mid-1990's when the outsourcing, privatisation etc mantra was in full swing across the country. We knew exactly what was coming with a shortage of tradespeople as it was so blindingly obvious to anyone who thought about it. The mechanism of training was being substantially dismantled so the outcome wasn't hard to foresee.

Simply funding TAFE courses isn't the answer when 87% of the apprentice's training and experience is gained working for an employer.

Free tools for apprentices are a help, but that's somewhat bureaucratic and I find myself feeling as though I've become a union rep just to get the damn $ out of them on behalf of the apprentice.

Lots of things need to happen to fix the situation. The status of tradespeople is one - recognise the reality that they're in that part of the population which has a formal qualification and not in the "dumb" part that doesn't. (I'm not saying anyone is dumb, just commenting on public perception).

And get away from this obsession with doing whatever is cheapest today. We'd never have trained a single apprentice in anything if everyone took that view. At the very least government needs to lead by example on that one. The lowest tender isn't necessarily the best and in some cases no tender (ie employ your own people including apprentices) is cheaper anyway.

Oh, and stop the attempts at dumbing down the apprenticeship system. That's not the answer unless the question was how to make things crash, flood or burn down.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2007)

BSD said:


> Apprentices in recent times (as far as I have been told) are mainly "trained" as cheap labour-hire substitutes and have very limited skills/training compared to the past.



Agreed 100% though there are a few employers who are exceptions.


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> its brilliant.... on the 7:30 report, they played clips of the 96 election..
> 
> 1. Howard saying he's not going to be rushed into releasing his tax plan
> 2. Keating running adds saying the liberals are inexperienced and can't be trusted in govt
> ...





Indeed Rafa! Unfortunately, many new voters in this election were only 10-12 year old kiddies back then, so coming in to this election have absolutely NO first hand experience of the creepy DE-JAVU feeling that prickled the old grey hairs on the back of MY neck when in the last couple of days the Coalition started spouting the EXACT same hoo-haa that was foisted upon them back in '96!

Obviously, Johnny remembers how uncomfortable HE felt at the time back then and wants to play the same trickery this time around. 

Gee, we really get a great choice at election time don't we? Almost as good as the old Two Airline Policy that guranteed us "competition" and "cheap airfares"! Spew....

AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 October 2007)

On the SBS Insight program last night the forum consisted almost entirely of young voters - many of them first timers in this election - and they were asked what election policies interested them and if they knew who they were going to vote for... most of them seemed to be swinging liberals (who thought they would likely vote Liberal BUT might actually vote Labour if the election campaign threw up some issue that actually engaged their attention toward Labour..).

Interestingly, the new Liberal tax policy was hardly mentioned as a primary factor for the vast majority of the forum group - in fact, only one or two made a belated mention of it after the presenter had prompted them about the policy three quarters of the way through the hour program! 

The main policy issues that seemed to interest these young folk (not in exact order of preference) were: Climate Change, Education, Cost of Housing, Hospitals and Health, Broadband and Internet Services, Public Infrastructure and Work Choices. A big majority of young voters said that the use by both sides of YouTube and FaceBook as mediums to "get their political messages across" to the Y generation were mostly laughable - not because of the attempt, but more by the way the politicians used this "new" form of communication in a "staid, old fashoned media way". They suggested Howard (Costello) and Rudd should use a more interactive and casual approach and better utilise younger spokespeople who could connect much better with members of their own age groups. 

One of the over-riding impressions that the presenter (and myself) got from the whole forum was the powerful sense of disconnection these young voters had for the whole political process, with significant numbers saying things like :

(a) they didn't really care about looking into the various policies and instead would vote the way their parents told them to vote. 

(b) they preferred to get politically informed by comedy shows like The Chaser and generally thought the whole process was a "bit of a joke". 

(c) they had grown up with everything they wanted, lacking for nothing and couldn't care less if everything just continued on the same.

I found all these off-the-cuff remarks somewhat disturbing, coming as they were from the very people who will be running the country in a few more years and who are supposed to be deciding THEIR futures! A care less attitude is not what the doctor ordered.....

Another interesting reaction occured when towards the end of the show, one of the few young people claiming to be a solid Labour voter reminded the mostly swinging Liberals in the forum that when they vote for John Howard they will in fact be getting Peter Costello as Prime Minister after a short term of Howard. This reminder prompted a bit of surprise amongst some of the young swinging Liberals, with a few of them suddenly changing their voting stance and indicating they hadn't realised that fact and that they do not want Costello as Prime Minister and now might change their vote! 

So, if this VERY INTERESTING forum last night was any indication at all, the pollies have a little more to worry about regarding engaging the vote of the "Y" generation than spouting off Tax Policies ad-infinitum. According to young voters, Howard (Costello) & Rudd need a complete re-invention! 

And come election day, maybe Howard's guaranteed handover to the far-less-liked Costello will cost him a siginificant number of those "bonus" votes he would hope to get from the new Tax Policy.  


AJ


----------



## nioka (17 October 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> On the SBS Insight program last night the forum consisted almost entirely of young voters - many of them first timers in this election
> 
> One of the over-riding impressions that the presenter (and myself) got from the whole forum was the powerful sense of disconnection these young voters had for the whole political process, with significant numbers saying things like :
> 
> ...



I wouldn't worry too much about it, They don't know as much as they think they do at this inexperienced stage of their life. They are outnumbered, and while they are an important part of society they are not yet in charge of the situation. They are out numbered by reformed hippies from the 70s.


----------



## TheAbyss (17 October 2007)

Remember it was Labor that radically reformed the tax system, by slashing the top tax rate from 60 cents in the dollar to 49 cents in the dollar, introducing imputation credits, deregulating the financial sector, floating the dollar, introducing fair enterprise bargaining all things Howard didn't do when he was treasurer.

Howard won't even deregulate the wheat industry properly (despite Tuckey calling for it). 

Why is it that there is no competition in training of medical specialists despite inquiry after inquiry of the productivity commission recommending it?


----------



## The Mint Man (17 October 2007)

nioka said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about it, They don't know as much as they think they do at this inexperienced stage of their life. They are outnumbered, and while they are an important part of society they are not yet in charge of the situation. They are out numbered by reformed hippies from the 70s.




You would be right in most cases however one thing AussieJeff forgot to mention is that this was a forum of young voters from an electorate that has a higher than average gen Y population. On top of that it is one of the many marginal seats that Labor needs to win. seems to me that they may hold the power!

The girl that pointed out that Costello would be PM in a couple of years was very Labor and basically said that she was voting for change. Not too smart IMO! she also stated that her family was ALP all the way.
Another thing that jeff forgot to mention is that at least one of them said that he wouldn’t mind if Costello was PM in a couple of years time as he thought he had done a good job with the economy. Many of them nodded their heads!

Lastly nioka, I think your comments are an insult to the people that were on Insight last night. Did you watch it? Some of these people were quite smart and all were very well spoken. Even the young electrician on there (bleached hair and all) had some very good points to make and was concerned about an array issues.
Being in my mid 20's, I have to say that I was actually very surprised to see that most were leaning towards the Liberals. 
Maybe I'm not on my own after all! I think this vote is going to be an important one after all.
And if thats the case now, just imagine in another 3 years time when more gen y voters come through and the boomers are starting to drop off.

Cheers


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 October 2007)

Yup. You could be right The Mint Man. We might have Liberal Governments for the next 50 years straight.... at least I won't be around to see that! 

AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 October 2007)

My experience is that voters 18 - 25 tend to vote for whoever is already in power since they have no experience with the alternatives.

Another thing I've noticed is that those aged around 20 now are somewhat more socially conservative than was the case for 20 year olds a decade ago.

When I was 20 I don't recall knowing anyone who was anything but absolutely liberal in attitude towards things like, for example, gay marriage and public discussion of sex. Of course it was right and it was simply old fashioned for anyone to think otherwise. Conservative meant "old" and we were glad our generation didn't have to live with such concepts.

But out of all the 20-ish people I know now, few if any would be absolutely in favour of gay marriage, public discussion of sex on the radio and the like. At the very least they would have some issues with the concept. Even where the environment is concerned, they are less radical than was generally the case a decade or two ago and are far more concerned about the financial implications of such issues. They are conservative in their outlook.

IMO that shift in attitude is partly a consequence of the government we have (not saying it is wrong or right, just observing) which promotes moral conservatism and general worship of the Dollar. That view is now very clearly reflected in todays 20 year olds just as a decade or so ago those of that age were very much pushing the Labor line of the era since they grew up under a Labor government.

I nearly joined the Liberal party at age 18 and have voted both Labor and Liberal in subsequent State and Federal elections. Nothing seems as black versus white now as it did when I was 18. That even applies to the issues I was involved with at the time - I understand the other side a LOT better now and even though I still don't agree with it I can certainly see their point.

One thing I always look for in a politician is evidence that they are not taking an extreme position on anything. Those that do take extreme positions generally haven't realised, or simply don't care, that when someone wins there is normally also a loser. In most cases, if you haven't identified the losers then you haven't understood the proposal.


----------



## The Mint Man (17 October 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Yup. You could be right The Mint Man. We might have Liberal Governments for the next 50 years straight.... at least I won't be around to see that!
> 
> AJ



Hehe, I dunno about that

Smurf, 
Just like to say, as I have said before in other threads, your always good for a full analysing post. You must type fast? Cheers


----------



## Rafa (17 October 2007)

smurf, i beleive your analysis is spot on...

the young today are definitely more conservative that 10-20 years ago... 

why? not sure, i think its swings and round-abouts really... everything happens in cycles, its helps keep the world balanced

in the case if rudd, i know a lot of his support (mine included, even tho mint-man, i know you might find it hard to beleive )... is becuase of his conservative beliefs... God, Family, Fair go, social justice, etc...


----------



## Rafa (18 October 2007)

since this topic is about tax... here is an interesting article from SMH...



> *Indexed to inflation, the tax cuts deliver nothing to taxpayers.*
> 
> JOHN Howard's $34 billion tax cut is neither a fistful of dollars nor tax reform. It is a chimera designed to give back to wage earners the growth in the tax burden as wages rise with inflation, pushing workers into higher tax brackets.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Mint Man (18 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> since this topic is about tax... here is an interesting article from SMH...



Likewise,



> *Ready or not, it’s time for answers*​
> Piers Akerman
> Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 05:39pm
> 
> ...




I wont post the whole article here but I will say that the rest of the article is VERY interesting indeed, ending with this;


> Australia needs to know why the Goss government, incorporating the current Opposition leader, acted as it did, before it votes on November 24. And for the sake of justice, needs to know why this matter remains unresolved.




You can view the whole thing here - http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/ready_or_not_its_time_for_answers

Cheers


----------



## arminius (19 October 2007)

id like to give my view on this debate thing.

theres five weeks before the country votes.
howard insists on only one, ten minutes into the campaign.
judging by the posts on this and other forums, much of the country is relatively uninformed, or are swayed by the politics of fear.

if the debate goes on before labours tax policy is released, 80% of this debate will be howard jumping up and down about its non existence.

also, since tax is on the brain, 90% of the debate will be centred on economics, as the libs want- (global and local economic boom,-mining-chindia).

a lot less will be said about foreign policy, human rights, fundamental democracy, the environment, education, health, aboriginal affairs, etc etc.

if howard gets smashed by rudd, it will a distant memory come election day, and the interim will be saturated with smear and fear.

for the sake of basic democracy, with a view to giving voters an accurate picture, 2 or 3 debates should be held on free to air , widely available tv.  

abbott last night conceded that jh has got nothing. 

no doubt liblovers will cry foul with this view. 

cheers, Brett.


----------



## The Mint Man (19 October 2007)

arminius said:


> judging by the posts on this and other forums, much of the country is relatively uninformed, or are swayed by the politics of fear..



In a way I agree with your comments about fear, But lets get real here mate... thats what life is most the time EG:- The stock markets = fear, dont eat this or that its bad for you... eat subway instead = fear, mobile phones give you radiation so buy our hands free kit = fear, use our shampoo or you will get bad dandruff = fear, use this cream so that people dont see your big pimples = fear.....  its no different in politics!
I'm interested in what end your coming from too? I'm guessing Labor considering your last comment but lets get real here. What sort of advertisments have they and the unions been runing for all this year? yep you guesed it *fear* advertisments. 
Vote liberal and you will lose all your rights, be earning $2 an hour, lose your house as a result, break your leg when your moving out of the house so you go to the hospital but theres no nurses, remember? they all quit because they lost all their rights, were earning $2 an hour, lost their house as a result...........

My point is that neiter side of politics can point the finger, they both use these tactics and like it or not, sometimes the adverts are true. 
IMHO Rudd is a hypocrite on this one

Cheers


----------



## --B-- (19 October 2007)

arminius said:


> judging by the posts on this and other forums, much of the country is relatively uninformed, or are swayed by the politics of fear.




absolutely. The fear campaign and misinformation propagated by the ALP and unions over workchoices has resulted in many people uninformed and unaware. many of these are completely swayed by the politics of fear....


----------



## nioka (19 October 2007)

--B-- said:


> absolutely. The fear campaign and misinformation propagated by the ALP and unions over workchoices has resulted in many people uninformed and unaware. many of these are completely swayed by the politics of fear....




And the only reason Howard is still there is the fear of a flood of asian boat people. Children overboard and all that, remember. You needen't fear that Rudd has no tax policy, he will come up with one in due time. Maybe you should fear that Howards tax cuts will leave no room for infrastructure investment or that it is a noncore promise that Costello is not bound to keep.


----------



## --B-- (19 October 2007)

nioka said:


> And the only reason Howard is still there is the fear of a flood of asian boat people. Children overboard and all that, remember.




oh how could we forget.. the howard haters never miss a chance to bring up those old chestnuts.. but what about AWB?? - you forgot that one...



> You needen't fear that Rudd has no tax policy, he will come up with one in due time.




oh i dont doubt he is carefully copying down much of the libs policy as we speak.



> Maybe you should fear that Howards tax cuts will leave no room for infrastructure investment or that it is a noncore promise that Costello is not bound to keep.




ahhh the old "core" and "non-core" doozy. thats always a beauty.


----------



## nioka (19 October 2007)

--B-- said:


> oh how could we forget.. the howard haters never miss a chance to bring up those old chestnuts.. but what about AWB?? - you forgot that one...
> 
> oh i dont doubt he is carefully copying down much of the libs policy as we speak.
> 
> ahhh the old "core" and "non-core" doozy. thats always a beauty.




All facts that the Liberals wish would go away. They are the facts. or some of them, that have caused me to vote labour this time, the first time in 50years of voting and I,m not happy to have to do it.


----------



## arminius (19 October 2007)

mint man, u asked where i was coming from. as im getting jack of all this, ill put it out there. this might be long, and i apologise in advance.

im 39 with two young kids. ive worked here there and everywhere,incl truck driving, small business, and youth work. i am not a member of a union or a political party, inc labour. im just about to finish a Bachelor of arts, maj in english and history, and will soon teach at high school. dont pull me up for grammar n spelling as im being lazy.
ive travelled for 4 yrs all over the place and lost my parents at a young age. im not rich, im not poor, and ive got a great family. i play and coach rugby, used to be in the army, and dont mind a beer. (or a chilled verdehlo with steamed fish and lemon).   

ive never met any pollies and dont have a personal axe to grind. i guess when it comes to politics it comes down to what your expectations are, and what sort of nation u want to live in.

also, 2 things i take into account. what the incumbents have done, and what the alternative have to offer. 

(some of) what the howard govt has done over ten yrs. for the sake of brevity i will be general. evidence is available if you look for it, im not gonna do it for you.

- made no real effort to improve the lives of our indiginous people. until just before election.

- ignored scientific reports on the detrimental effects of global warming. until just before an election. even now, theres no target for industry, no incentive.

-condoned the invasion of a soverign country for reasons the yanks have admitted were false. our 'help' even then effectively amounts to a company of diggers (100 men) plus support, tucked away where they wont get hurt. not one aussie dig has patrolled the streets of Baghdad. our real support has been the most telling. political. we had an opportunity to stand up to the US in front of the world and say 'friend, this is wrong and we will sit this one out'

-as our population grows, more kids go to school, so more money gets put in to the system. BUT, relative to numbers less federal money has been handed over. same with health. more people, more strain, less money per person.

-to defend Oz we need a dominant air force more than anything else. the govt committed to buy super hornets. they are a commodore station wagon compared to our potential enemy's audi A4. the air force was not consulted!
then they bought amphib transports. pack it with soldiers and it will take the ENTIRE ADF to defend it in wartime. a stupid, very expensive waste  
why this decision? so we can act as an extra brigade for the US army. our whole strategic outlook has lost all independance.

thanks to china, our national income has gone beserk over the last 6-7 yrs. (check eg: reserve bank website. income from mining). table H i think.
what has happened to this windfall? iraq, water plan? (again relevant dept's not consulted), 30 dollar tax cuts, mersey hospital, subsidy for people to put cars on gas etc. 
any responsible govt would say ok, what do we need? local councils are short of cash, states are short of cash, highways are shocking, a shortage of homes to house for, among others, 280 000 immigrants, bugger all doctors and nurses in the country, 50 cents petrol excise, overcrowded railways, a very fast train between melbourne and brisbane perhaps, how about expanding port facilities and other infrastructure in the mining areas so this country is not reliant on china or japan to build it. australasian mining is shipping in a prefab mine site cause we cant build it here. 
-what have we got? boasts about massive surplus. cant eat cash john.
i could run the economy to a surplus. earn more than what i spend. 
all of the pork barrelling pressures I rates, and they will go up in November, which will be sweet justice considering the last election.

these things take foresight and responsibility, and thought, but we have a govt that does what? something like the mersey hospital fiasco.

- erode democracy. a few years ago the govt promised war veterans an increase in pay. then they reneged after the election. a PUBLIC SERVANT told the press, and it made news. what happened? the p servant got the sack and the journo's were charged. 

anyone read the sedition laws? if people cannot talk openly about terrorism, they take it underground. if you can't speak out about things that irk you, you are eventually, over time, driven to take drastic measures. look at pakistan...muslims killed in the red mosque by the govt, attempted bhutto assasination yesty, hundreds dead. same principle. read 'silencing dissent' for a worrying  insight into the methods of the howard govt and the demise of aussie democracy. 
hicks rotted in gaol for 5 yrs without the slightest chance of a trial, until the people jacked up. i dont care if he was obladens right hand man, everyone deserves a trial, or democracy is eroded. 

the nation cannot handle the mining boom, everything is in short supply, and what do we get...tax cut of 20-40 dollars.  why, because they are popular. this govt does things for popularity. i want a govt that does things because they are right.  

honesty. personally, i value integrity. i know its old but when that boat was sinking and the kids were 'thrown overboard', howard and reith forbade the naval officer from telling the truth for fear of dismissal. 
hanneef was an innocent, diligent doctor. they tried every trick in the book to get aussies to jack up and ask to be saved from the 'mad terrorist'. thanks largely to his lawyers it failed. 

i'll pause here on howard.

what rudd offers.
- ive read some of their policies and they seem fine.

the negs are
 'union control'- i dont believe it, and unions do the hard work on behalf of 90% of the people. remember, Hitler abolished unions in 1933. 
if unions go too hard, labour knows they'll get voted out in 3 yrs.

inexperience- they have years of experience in decision making, thinking, communicating, and diplomacy. its enough for me. besides, are we to have an 'experienced' lib govt for ever? 

me tooism- mostly political, not wanting to rock the boat of conservative australia too much. people are afraid of change. too much change is scary.

if you are still with me, you've got more patience than i. 

there was a time when i'd read the sport section of the paper first. i didnt like politics at all, but my attitude has changed as my knowledge base has increased. 

there is much much more, but i gotta mow the lawn.

ive never been more angry than what i am now.

have a beaut weekend,
Brett.


----------



## Julia (19 October 2007)

nioka said:


> And the only reason Howard is still there is the fear of a flood of asian boat people. Children overboard and all that, remember.  you should fear that Howards tax cuts will leave no room for infrastructure investment or that it is a noncore promise that Costello is not bound to keep.



Nioka, I don't think you can reasonably say the only reason John Howard is still there is the fear of a flood of Asian boat people.  On the whole people have relegated that to the category "oh well, another stunt, but that was then".  Now I have the impression that most people who are favouring the Libs are doing so essentially because  (a) they feel they are good economic managers and without that, you have stuff all, and (b) they simply can't like the Opposition.

That is not to say those of us at this stage intending to vote Liberal are entirely happy with the choice (war in Iraq, lack of care for disadvantaged sectors of society, and much more.)


----------



## Awesomandy (19 October 2007)

Well, the polls have it that Libs are on a comeback, but Labor is going to unveil its tax policy at 2:15pm today. It's going to be very interesting, but under the Libs tax policy, I would be around $10k better off each year. Let's see who is going to buy my vote.


----------



## algis (19 October 2007)

Just a quick observation on Howards proposed fire sale tax cuts:

It will dampen the effectiveness of negative gearing and reduce the motivation for investment that makes use of this.


----------



## nioka (19 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Nioka, I don't think you can reasonably say the only reason John Howard is still there is the fear of a flood of Asian boat people.  On the whole people have relegated that to the category "oh well, another stunt, but that was then".  .)



It may have been just another stunt but I doubt that he would have won that election without the boat people scare at that time. I did vote for him then, not because of the stunt but because I still believed in him at that time. A belief I can not, and do not, hold now.

Get rid of Howard, Costello and Abbot and I probably will go back to the coalition.( assuming I live that long.)


----------



## Rafa (19 October 2007)

here it is... well, the overview anyway... 


> Kevin Rudd has announced major tax refunds for parents, offering up to 50 percent rebates for school expenses.
> 
> Labor will overhaul the tax system creating three rates of 15, 30 and 40 per cent by 2016 and will create an education fund by not paying the Coalition's tax cuts for the rich.
> 
> ...






> FEDERAL Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has announced what he calls Labor's long-term plan for tax.
> 
> Under Labor, tax rates would be 15 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent.
> 
> ...


----------



## --B-- (19 October 2007)

so do the pro-rudd people here also consider the tax cuts he proposes are bribes?

or is it only when evil johnny does it?


----------



## Yezzy (19 October 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> My experience is that voters 18 - 25 tend to vote for whoever is already in power since they have no experience with the alternatives.
> ...





The Age 14/10/2007]The swing to Labor by younger voters has been dramatic said:


> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/13/1191696241329.html[/URL]








--B-- said:


> so do the pro-rudd people here also consider the tax cuts he proposes are bribes?
> ...



Anyone who doesn't is a fool, simple.



Tax cuts, oops policy, is a non-issue for me. It's just short sighted vote buying while essential services go without.


----------



## Rafa (19 October 2007)

--B-- said:


> so do the pro-rudd people here also consider the tax cuts he proposes are bribes?
> 
> or is it only when evil johnny does it?




everything promised by anyone in the context of an election is a bribe.
the key is to have a good policy behind the bribe...


the policy i wanted to see, from both parties (given that we are going to get tax cuts regardless of the whether we want them or not)... is 
a. simplification of the tax system
b. removal for too many thresholds...

so far, from what i can see, we have one less threshold with rudd... i.e. only 15, 30 and 40... Would like to see that reduced further... but this is a good start.


But, we have an extra set of deductions introduced... via childrens education expenses, which to me only further complicates the tax system...


Does anyone have any research on how much its costs us for all the deductions that we claim???


PS: personally, i claim a stack load of deductions, so having more deductions is a good thing... i am trying to look at this wholistically tho...


----------



## --B-- (19 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> everything promised by anyone in the context of an election is a bribe.
> the key is to have a good policy behind the bribe...




absolutely however its interesting to see people relax their previously 'disgusted' views on Howards 'bribery' now that Kev is following suit.



> the policy i wanted to see, from both parties (given that we are going to get tax cuts regardless of the whether we want them or not)... is
> a. simplification of the tax system
> b. removal for too many thresholds...
> 
> so far, from what i can see, we have one less threshold with rudd... i.e. only 15, 30 and 40... Would like to see that reduced further... but this is a good start.




well provided they remain in office until 2016 i suppose it is a good "start"



> But, we have an extra set of deductions introduced... via childrens education expenses, which to me only further complicates the tax system...




yep. its another bribe to families. vote buying by Kevin and nothing more.

oh and its interesting to see Kev has deferred the tax cuts to the evil rich people too.... that should keep the howard-haters happy...


----------



## The Mint Man (19 October 2007)

arminius,
You will be pleased to know that I did read the whole thing, although I did think it was too long: I didnt ask for the life story but thanks anyway. Also dont get too angry, just remind yourself that this is a forum and your bound to have different views to everyone else.

You pointed out a hell of a lot of things that you think the government should/could be doing but Im not even sure Labor has said they would do any of them.... theres probably a reason for that.

Cheers


----------



## The Mint Man (19 October 2007)

Just a couple of things straight off,
The 15, 30, 40% tax rates will only come in 2016. If Labor is around by then. I think the Libs are well on their way to getting there anyway. I thought the Liberals had already set targets?

Also, in regards to this $2.3 billion education tax refund. I think we need to be told much more about this....... Get this! For starters, I heard wayne swan say that it dosnt even include excursions (which are a part of education) nor does it cover the cost of School uniforms or shoes

Cheers


----------



## mark70920 (19 October 2007)

Everyone needs to take a step back , have a good look at the policies and then compare the two.
A lot of people will take the whats in it for me point of view and vote accordly ,others will look at the benefit to the community as a whole , that may sway their vote and others will still vote the same way no matter what.

Personally tax cuts won't sway my vote one way or the other , John Howard lost me with workchoices.


----------



## son of baglimit (19 October 2007)

potential hole in the tax refund for education costs.

is it a deduction ? if so, in the real world it will be of NO BENEFIT to low income families, those who need it most, as so many pay little or no tax anyway.
is it a tax offset ? if so, refundable or non refundable ? the difference is...........if it is non refundable, again it will be of little or no benefit to low income families, as it will only refund any tax they pay, and once that tax is exhausted, it has nowhere to go.
e.g. the child care tax refund/offset - while ok for one or more parents with separate incomes over $50k, for anyone below that they often missed out - hence its transfer from a tax offset to a centrelink payment for 07 onwards. it severely discriminated against single mothers trying to get off welfare and work. from the 07 payment onwards its fixed.
the education tax offset has to be 'refundable', so ALL AUSTRALIANS can take advantage of it, not just middle income & higher earners.


----------



## Julia (19 October 2007)

Joe, 
Would it be possible to add a poll to this thread asking members to vote for their preference:

(a)  the tax cuts offered by both parties

(b)  the same dollar value spent on infrastructure, health, education etc instead.

Didn't want to start yet another thread but would be interested to see the results.

With thanks

Julia


----------



## Awesomandy (19 October 2007)

I'm very disappointed. All Labor has done is follow the Libs tax cuts, but shift some of the money from the rich to lower/middle class families. And then, it doesn't really matter what the plan is for 201X. There is going to be another election in 2010, so I'm sure they'll have new policies by then.

There are so many things they could've done with the money, e.g. better health, education. But no, they went for the "me-too" politics, which, I have to say, is one of the factors why Beazley never made it.

Oppositions are supposed to come up with different/better plans than the current government. If you can't do that, then why the hell would anyone bother voting you in just to have pretty much the same policies?


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 October 2007)

I tend to agree. Labor will have to work hard in the remaining five weeks to promote their differences in other key areas such as health and education. 

Though I think their main weapon going in to the final week of the campaign should be to somehow convince swinging voters that Rudd is a better choice for PM than Costello, since a vote for yesterday's man (John Howard) is a certain vote for Costello. (That shouldn't be TOO hard!). 

In fact, I would probably vote Liberal myself if the Libs could put forward less arrogant alternatives than the incumbents Downer, Abbot, Ruddock and Costello.... there have got to be better choices than that lot for another term!  

AJ


----------



## greggy (20 October 2007)

Awesomandy said:


> I'm very disappointed. All Labor has done is follow the Libs tax cuts, but shift some of the money from the rich to lower/middle class families. And then, it doesn't really matter what the plan is for 201X. There is going to be another election in 2010, so I'm sure they'll have new policies by then.
> 
> There are so many things they could've done with the money, e.g. better health, education. But no, they went for the "me-too" politics, which, I have to say, is one of the factors why Beazley never made it.
> 
> Oppositions are supposed to come up with different/better plans than the current government. If you can't do that, then why the hell would anyone bother voting you in just to have pretty much the same policies?



There's little difference between Labor and Liberal at the federal level. Both parties are now conservative.  Rudd says that the Howard Government is out of touch, yet most of Labor's own policies are very similar.  One of the best examples of this is the release of its tax policy.  IMO the perception is that they may well have waited for the release of the Liberals own tax plan and then copied the best parts of it.  
I personally would prefer greater spending on health and education.  Australia is doing very well economically, yet there is room for improvement on health and education.  Rudd seems hellbent on playing the "small target" game during this election campaign.  It worked for Howard in 1996, but back then Keating was very unpopular. Howard is not as unpopular, but I sense that the "Its Time" theme may well end up being the most important factor on polling day.


----------



## Buster (20 October 2007)

G'Day Julia, Nokia,



Julia said:


> Nioka, I don't think you can reasonably say the only reason John Howard is still there is the fear of a flood of Asian boat people.  On the whole people have relegated that to the category "oh well, another stunt, but that was then".




I'm not entirely sure what is meant by 'stunt', but I certainly don't remember it that way..  I seem to remember for a while there seeing another boat load on thier way every time we looked at the horizon, but then perhaps being a little 'closer' to the action I may have a different perception..

I think the actions of the government at that time were _VERY_ effective, don't see to many of them now..If anything the policy may have been _TO_ effective as it seems 'people have relegated that to the category "oh well, another stunt"..

It often amuses me when I read through threads and blogs on this topic, and the endless 'Howard is a lying toad, so I'm not voting for him..'  I can say that on the points that I have personally been involved he has pretty much given a straight account, and the small variances in the story are probably that the 'messanger' hasn't quite got it right..

BUT, at the end of the day, no matter who fills the position, there is a great deal of scrutiny with every journolist hanging off every word in order to trip them up, every voter looking for a reason to howl 'unfair' and every minority group looking for a reason to whine and demand more money/relief/compensation..  I doubt there'd be too many people that could keep it all together such as Johnny has..

I certainly wouldn't want the job of trying to keep all the people happy, all the time.. and maintaining economic stability etc etc..

Regards,

Buster


----------



## Julia (20 October 2007)

Buster, your points are well made.  But don't forget the politicians choose their roles.  Yes, we are tough on them when it comes to elections, but so we should be.  They need to be accountable.

Back to tax cuts versus services:  an item on the news this morning that the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane is cutting 40 beds and (I think) 17 waiting lists purely because of lack of funds.  This "40 beds" represents the lives of many more than 40 people, given the rapid turnover in hospitals these days.  Shouldn't funding be increased so this doesn't happen rather than giving tax cuts for new plasma TV's etc?  And yes, I know the hospitals are largely funded by the States, but the Federal component of the funding has not grown in line with that of the States.


----------



## Buster (20 October 2007)

G'Day Julia,



Julia said:


> Yes, we are tough on them when it comes to elections, but so we should be.  They need to be accountable.




Not a problem with being accountable, I just think that many peaople these days have unreasonable expectations.. after all, he puts his pants on every morning just like me, one leg at a time..(He may even pull his skirt up, just like you, but I'm sure he does that in the privacy of his own home.. seems it's all the rage with the pollies in the UK at the moment.. )



Julia said:


> Back to tax cuts versus services:  an item on the news this morning that the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane is cutting 40 beds and (I think) 17 waiting lists purely because of lack of funds.  This "40 beds" represents the lives of many more than 40 people, given the rapid turnover in hospitals these days.  Shouldn't funding be increased so this doesn't happen rather than giving tax cuts for new plasma TV's etc?  And yes, I know the hospitals are largely funded by the States, but the Federal component of the funding has not grown in line with that of the States.




This goes back to my previous remark about 'wanting more', and probably your comment about 'stunts'.. perhaps I'm the ulimate cynic but it seems to me that whenever the elections rear thier head, be it local/state/federal there is _ALWAYS _a hospital closing wards/beds/departments.. They 'sniff' the opportunity to make a political statement of thier own.. as the saying goes 'The sqeaky wheel gets the oil...'

Personally, I would be more than happy to forego the $20 a week tax cut (or whatever it works out to be) and put it into the public areana/infrastrucure IF it was to be spent wisely.. Unfortunately I think that most of the public sectors are so inefficient that the $34Bn would simply be squandered and have no real effect on the average joe.. I'm sure there would be numerous consultants (hope you're not a consultant..) that would benefit though..

Regards,

Buster


----------



## Julia (20 October 2007)

Ah Buster, so cynical!
You are probably right on all counts.


----------



## nioka (20 October 2007)

Buster said:


> G'Day Julia, Nokia,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree that the boat people were creating a problem,  but children overboard? really.


----------



## IFocus (20 October 2007)

Hi Buster

Had the miss fortune to have my father admitted to Joondalup Hospital the other week, it was a major shock way beyond any conception that I had as to the state of our hospitals.

There was no squeaky wheels just staff working beyond their resources and available beds......


Focus


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 October 2007)

Buster said:


> Personally, I would be more than happy to forego the $20 a week tax cut (or whatever it works out to be) and put it into the public areana/infrastrucure IF it was to be spent wisely.. Unfortunately I think that most of the public sectors are so inefficient that the $34Bn would simply be squandered and have no real effect on the average joe.. I'm sure there would be numerous consultants (hope you're not a consultant..) that would benefit though..



Seen plenty of this working in the public service in the 1990's. In short, government (ie the taxpayer - you and me) gets absolutely screwed whenever consultants or contractors are used on an ongoing basis.

Sometimes there are legit reasons of course, but I'd say 90% of the time the work could be done cheaper by just directly employing someone to do it. Outside of the very highest levels, public service wages aren't that high and are an order of magnitude lower than the consultant's bill.

The real issue is with _how_ things are done by consultants / contractors. To use a very simple example, let's say you wanted to dig a trench and put a pipe in it that was one kilometre long.

Two options here. Hire a consultant who will specify exactly where it goes then get a contractor do to the work. Or buy / hire an excavator and employ some workers to do the job.

First approach (consultant and contractors) will be fine unless, as is usually the case, there is some hard rock etc in the way. Then the contractor will spend an outright fortune removing it in order to do what the consultant said they must do. Nobody complains since they're all profiting rather nicely. Everyone's happy and the job gets done exactly as specified.

But if the workers were employed directly, they would simply move the location of the pipe and go around whatever was in the way. MUCH cheaper but, and here's the reason it won't happen with consultants and contractors, it requires decision making on the run, can't possibly be shown in a tender document and aims to _minimise_ the cost rather than maximise it. Once a contractor spots a variation, and that is precisely what usually happens, they won't be remotely interested in minimising costs that's for sure.

Variations can be prevented of course. But in doing so the opportunity to gain productive efficiency on the run is generally lost. Fixed price maybe, but it won't be a price that reflects the cheapest way of doing the job.

I've nothing against contractors or consultants per se, there are some very good ones out there, but when it comes to public infrastructure what I've seen doesn't represent good value for the taxpayer. It's not through anything dishonest but through doing the work in a fundamentally inefficient manner - it's cheaper to move the pipe 2 metres to the side than shift the rock, for example but the contractor won't do that since it's not what is specified on the piece of paper. So they just inflate the cost and do it the hard way instead.

This analogy applies to practically anything of a physical nature. If there really is only one pipe and no more then sure, get the contractors and consultants since it won't be worth the hassle of employing staff, buying equipment etc. But if there's going to be more pipes put in on a regular basis then it's cheaper to just employ some workers directly.

But government workers are inefficient I hear you say? To some extent I would agree with that yes. But there is no profit added to their cost and their natural tendency is to do things the easiest (ie cheapest) way which tends to offset this. It's like that cartoon with one person trying to shift the heavy object by pushing harder whilst the other uses a trolley instead. Sometimes being lazy works out cheaper and more effective.

As for the hospitals, just put it in a marginal electorate. Preferably without hiring a consultant to work out which one. 

"The burden of government is measured not by how much it taxes, but by how it spends". Not sure where that quote came from but it sounds pretty right to me.


----------



## arminius (20 October 2007)

has big kev checkmated ol johnny. stick with me for a minute, ive had a thought.

all along rudd has wanted 3 debates, closer to election day for max benefit.

labour held off on their tax policy. 

Q. did howard insist on this debate tomorrow because he thought, thanks maybe to some well-placed disinformation, that labours tax plan wasnt quite ready. howard could go in to the debate, needing to score big time, and hammer rudd on no tax plan.

instead of entering the room unarmed, rudd has a double barrel 12 gauge tucked under his arm and howard has nowhere to hide.

dont underestimate the macchinations of these pollys. a brilliant move if its the case.


----------



## Aussiejeff (22 October 2007)

The GREAT MASS DEBATE is over! Hooray!!!! 

Well, I watched it  - controversial worm and all - and I have got to say that Howard's MAIN weapon going into the debate (ie: his much vaunted TAX CUTS) barely raised the worm's head from it's slumber.... his body language and overall demeanour (stridently negative opinions, scowling and NEVER smiling, endless fidgeting and trying to hog the airtime with overblown rhetoric) was I think a surprisingly poor reflection on him - he looked increasingly anxious as the "debate" continued further.

Rudd on the other hand seemed quite nervous and fidgetty himself at the outset, but quickly got into stride and was looking very confident by the end of the "show". He tried to look to the future and in contrast to Howard, he at least tried to stay positive (for the most part unless provoked by Howard) and he smiled A LOT which must have had a big subliminal bearing on the direction the worm was taking - and from where I was sitting the worm gave Howard an absolute bath. Rudd's worm never fell below neutral and spent a lot of the time ensconced somewhere in a White Heaven while Howard's worm appeared many times to be heading straight towards a Red Hell. LOL

Regardless of all the issues and wriggling worms, I think any body language expert worth their salt would have declared Rudd the clear popular choice on demeanour alone. Howard needs to go back to the make-up room and learn how to wear a smile under any circumstances and keep his testiness in check ... his claim at the end of the show that he was a fundamental OPTIMIST and that Rudd was a fundamental PESSIMIST appeared laughable after his cranky, non-smiling performance.

And for those of you die-hard Liberal supporters who think I'm being a bit hard on Howard, I am a swinging voter who VOTEDFOR HIM LAST TIME (let's face it, who could have voted for Latham in all honesty) - and I'm not impressed with how the PM is handling himself against Rudd - not at all. He really needs to lift his game or the unthinkable may well happen. I'm also not exactly relishing the fact that if I vote Liberal he is shortly after going to give Costello a free gift of PM-ship. I think Howard is streets ahead of Costello in political savvy and I honestly don't think Costello has earnt his gift at all - he will get it off the PM's back through no great display of ability himself. If anything deters me from voting Liberal again, that will be the stickler...

AJ


----------



## Julia (22 October 2007)

You could just about have written your post on my behalf, Jeff.
Agree entirely.  Reluctantly.  I will be voting Liberal (well, at this stage), but Kevin Rudd was the clear winner in that so called debate.  John Howard came across as simply cranky and defensive.


----------



## Stan 101 (22 October 2007)

Yes, from a body language and NLP point of view, Kevin Rudd nailed that 90 minutes. His dress, his front on mannerisms, even down to the way he adjusted the mics lower (as also noted by Alan Pease) to give himself the "taller stance" was impressive. Did anyone notice the cheekiness of Rudd at times?
The one time in particular was when the presenter stopped the debate and reminded the audience to keep opinions to themselves. Rudd then asked if it was directed at Costello.

On a slightly different note, Howard kept repeating that the economy is not simply due to the mining sector. I agree with that. Wasn't it a labor government that instigated compulsory super? With 9% of salaries (approx) having to go into either real estate or share market, surely that excess value has helped bouy the markets in times of trouble..Can anyone confirm or exclude this from an economic point of view.

If I'm right, I wonder why labor haven't jumped on it..


On the voting, I'm still on the fence. I want change but I'm not convinced removing IR and handing back to unions is the way to go..Costello will take over (negative to me). Rudd's team were a shambles 12 months ago. what to do? hmmmm



Cheers,


----------



## The Mint Man (22 October 2007)

> Rudd's worm never fell below neutral and spent a lot of the time ensconced somewhere in a White Heaven while Howard's worm appeared many times to be heading straight towards a Red Hell.



I agree, but thats the problem I have with the worm or the people that were chosen to control it anyway.
I mean you can’t tell me that Howard had no good points or that Rudd had no bad points. 
From where I was sitting the worm was quite bias. *It quite often went up before Kevin Rudd even drew breath**!!!*
It also quite often went down when the debate got a little heated. Why? I think it had more to do with the people in control of the worm not liking confrontation (which I suppose is a natural human response) but if what is being said is true or is a reasonable remark then there should be no problem with that.

IMHO the worm is useless and doesn’t give you any feedback that is worth looking into


Cheers


----------



## The Mint Man (22 October 2007)

This just out... 



> *Costello rips into Labor's tax policy*​James Goodwin
> 
> The Treasurer has started the second week of the campaign attacking Labor's tax policy, declaring people would be hundreds of dollars worse off in six years time.
> 
> ...



Stay tuned I think there will be more to come.

Cheers


----------



## Rafa (22 October 2007)

> IMHO the worm is useless and doesn’t give you any feedback that is worth looking into



wow, you really are a liberal party echo mintman... 
just like kevin rudd i guess... 

anyway, unfortunately i missed the debate... but looks like i didn't miss much. 

This new tax component of the liberal plan is interesting... from what i've heard, thats not till 2011 anyway. There is going to be another election long before that... the world economy could be in a rather different state by then.... not to mention the state of politician promises by then!

Regardless, tts brilliant that trap laid by costello... by not releasing the actual tax thresholds, but by simply stating 45% of tax payers to get a marginal tax rate of 15%... 



> Since then Mr Costello has released the thresholds implied by his distributional analysis which he says the 30 per cent threshold would be $41,000 in 2013 after allowing for rising wages – or bracket creep as it sometimes called.
> 
> He said you cannot get to 45 per cent of tax payers on a marginal rate of 15 per cent or less without allowing for rising thresholds.
> 
> Mr Costello demurred when asked if he had deliberately laid a trap for Labor.




That's entertainment... love seeing it... and good to see its still alive and well in Aussie politics...


On another note, there is bit of discussion on people currently not being willing to think long term.... when it comes to giving tax cuts... this latest round from both the libs and labour is over 6 -8 year... now thats long term!

After looking at both tax bribes... i have to say both these parties policies are aboslutely useless  what about actually trying to simplify the tax system, so we don't need to go and form companies, trusts, etc and make accountants rich.


----------



## nioka (22 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> This just out...
> 
> 
> Stay tuned I think there will be more to come.
> ...





 Yes there will be more to come but please on this one issue will you admit that Rudd was a clear winner on the debate. He didn't need the worm to show that.


----------



## nioka (22 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> wow, you really are a liberal party echo mintman...
> just like kevin rudd i guess...
> 
> On another note, there is bit of discussion on people currently not being willing to think long term.... when it comes to giving tax cuts... this latest round from both the libs and labour is over 6 -8 year... now thats long term!
> .




The only reason they look long term in some matters is to make the tax cuts or expenditure look like it is a lot more than it actually is. If they say "we will give you $100m this year" it doesn't sound as good as "we will give you $500m" and then put in small print "over the next 5 years".


----------



## YELNATS (22 October 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> The GREAT MASS DEBATE is over! Hooray!!!!
> 
> I'm also not exactly relishing the fact that if I vote Liberal he is shortly after going to give Costello a free gift of PM-ship. I think Howard is streets ahead of Costello in political savvy and I honestly don't think Costello has earnt his gift at all - he will get it off the PM's back through no great display of ability himself. If anything deters me from voting Liberal again, that will be the stickler...
> 
> AJ




I voted for Mt Howard in the last election. 

But this time the strategy of the Liberals doesn't impress me. Howard is still the leader because the Liberals feel he has the best chance of winning the election. If they win, Howard then hands over to Costello asap. Looks like the Libs don't have enough faith in Costello to win an election. Looks like Costello needs someone else to win elections for him. With the benefit of hindsight, this could be seen to have been a killer error by the current government.

I wasn't too impressed by images of Costello and Downer grinning and giggling in the audience. Was it an "in" joke? What was so funny?

I feel Rudd "won" the debate, but not because of the machinations of the "worm", after all that depended on an invited studio audience and we don't know anything about their political persuasions.


----------



## greggy (22 October 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> The GREAT MASS DEBATE is over! Hooray!!!!
> 
> Well, I watched it  - controversial worm and all - and I have got to say that Howard's MAIN weapon going into the debate (ie: his much vaunted TAX CUTS) barely raised the worm's head from it's slumber.... his body language and overall demeanour (stridently negative opinions, scowling and NEVER smiling, endless fidgeting and trying to hog the airtime with overblown rhetoric) was I think a surprisingly poor reflection on him - he looked increasingly anxious as the "debate" continued further.
> 
> ...



Hi Aussiejeff,

I too am a swinging voter. I backed Howard last time, partly because I couldn't stand Latham. Latham had some good ideas, but everything fell apart during the election campaign.  
This time Labor is playing a smarter game with Rudd at the helm.  Last night Rudd came across as more energetic. He was a bit nervous at first, but came home from behind to pip Howard at the post.  
Even though I'm worried at the prospect of back to back Labor governments (or even Liberal for that matter), I don't like the fact that Howard has committed himself to retiring as PM half way through his next term.  In terms of character Costello reminds me a lot of Keating.  I especially don't like his smirk and can't see how he could relate to the so-called "battlers" out there.


----------



## IFocus (22 October 2007)

> But this time the strategy of the Liberals doesn't impress me. Howard is still the leader because the Liberals feel he has the best chance of winning the election. If they win, Howard then hands over to Costello asap. Looks like the Libs don't have enough faith in Costello to win an election. Looks like Costello needs someone else to win elections for him. With the benefit of hindsight, this could be seen to have been a killer error by the current government.




Yes a vote for Howard is really a vote for Costello, ironicaly Costello will get lumbered with Howards promisers if the Libs get up.


----------



## Rafa (22 October 2007)

greggy said:


> Even though I'm worried at the prospect of back to back Labor governments (or even Liberal for that matter)...




Well, at the moment the coalition have control of the senate and will retain that for at least the next 4 years... 

We know how dangerous that has been... (i.e. controlling both houses)... that is more of a worrying prospect of wall to wall labor as the federal govt can't do anything without the approval of the senate.


----------



## nioka (22 October 2007)

Rafa said:


> Well, at the moment the coalition have control of the senate and will retain that for at least the next 4 years...
> 
> We know how dangerous that has been... (i.e. controlling both houses)... that is more of a worrying prospect of wall to wall labor as the federal govt can't do anything without the approval of the senate.




Not right. The libs could easily lose a seat in the half senate election. We could end up ( and probably will) with independants and the greens holding the balance of power there. Maybe Pauline Hanson will have the balance of power!!!. Remember when Joh appointed a Senator for Queensland to fill a mid term vacancy and changed the balance. That's the fickel nature of the Senate.


----------



## lampard (22 October 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> I agree, but thats the problem I have with the worm or the people that were chosen to control it anyway.
> I mean you can’t tell me that Howard had no good points or that Rudd had no bad points.
> From where I was sitting the worm was quite bias. *It quite often went up before Kevin Rudd even drew breath**!!!*
> It also quite often went down when the debate got a little heated. Why? I think it had more to do with the people in control of the worm not liking confrontation (which I suppose is a natural human response) but if what is being said is true or is a reasonable remark then there should be no problem with that.
> ...




Yeah I have to agree about the worm being useless. It was clear enough that Mr Rudd was the victor in the debate, we don't need a worm to tell us that.

Just a point on the inconsistencies that you raised about the worm:

At one stage Mr Howard said his piece (can't remember the topic) and the worm was in the lower regions (as usual). Immediately after Mr Howard finished, Mr Rudd had the opportunity for rebuttal and the first statement he said was that he agreed with Mr Howard..... and the worm went up!

That was enough worm for me.


----------



## noco (22 October 2007)

You have got to hand it to KRUDD, he has got the gift of the gab of which the gullible fall for; I give him 10 out of 10 for rhetoric and 1 out of 10 for substance.
The old old saying, "you can  fool half the people some of the time, some of the people half the time but can't fool all the people all the time".
The unions have 15% of the work force under their control and 70% representation on the shadow front bench;a bit unbalanced if you ask me.
Real scarery stuff  heh!


----------



## Julia (22 October 2007)

I don't like the way this campaign on both sides so far is presidential in nature.  Whichever side wins, we are going to have to live with their various Ministers.  Tonight's 7.30 Report actually had an interview with Wayne Swan which was pretty useful to me in confirming my opinion of him.
We are by now familiar with the Liberal/National Ministers, but have seen very little of those who will represent the Opposition, other than Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett.  I feel quite positive towards Mr Rudd but then I remember the rest of his team and swing back to the Libs.


----------



## noco (23 October 2007)

Julia said:


> I don't like the way this campaign on both sides so far is presidential in nature.  Whichever side wins, we are going to have to live with their various Ministers.  Tonight's 7.30 Report actually had an interview with Wayne Swan which was pretty useful to me in confirming my opinion of him.
> We are by now familiar with the Liberal/National Ministers, but have seen very little of those who will represent the Opposition, other than Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett.  I feel quite positive towards Mr Rudd but then I remember the rest of his team and swing back to the Libs.




Yes! Julia I agree. KRUDD is from the same mould as ex Premier Beattie. Both are media tarts, full of carisma,rhetoric and no substance. These characteristics do not make a good Prime Minister.We do not know who will be his ministers if he wins. Krudd at the moment is a one man show. He is as scared as hell to let any of his team talk for fear they will make a gaff of things. Gillard giggles like a school girl when cornered. Swan can't lay straight in bed.


----------



## greggy (26 October 2007)

noco said:


> You have got to hand it to KRUDD, he has got the gift of the gab of which the gullible fall for; I give him 10 out of 10 for rhetoric and 1 out of 10 for substance.
> The old old saying, "you can  fool half the people some of the time, some of the people half the time but can't fool all the people all the time".
> The unions have 15% of the work force under their control and 70% representation on the shadow front bench;a bit unbalanced if you ask me.
> Real scarery stuff  heh!



The same could be said in relation to the number of ex-lawyers within Liberal ranks.  IMO what matters most is whether they are capable of being competent ministers.  The Liberals scare campaign in this regard is very negative and makes many voters focus more on their unpopular IR laws.


----------

