2013 Federal Election: 7 September 2013

moXJO said:

Anyone had a serious look at Clive Palmers Australian Party?
I agree with some of his policies I have seen, but haven't really looked much deeper for any fruit cake hidden beneath.

Click to expand...

The Palmer United Party wants a 15 percentage point cut in income tax, the abolition of fringe benefits tax and tax deductibility of home loan payments.

So far no mention of how to pay for this massive loss of revenue.

Why is it that every time Labor aquires the purse strings whether in Federal, State or Local Governments it always finishes up in one hell of a mess only to be sorted out by an incoming Liberal Government. Then once the Liberals get the counrty back on its feet, the naive say it is time for a change and history is repeated all over again

The Beattie/Bligh Labor Government were borrowing money to pay public servants. The public servants in Queensland rose from 140,000 to over 200,000 in ten years. That was all a part of Labors plan to hood wink people into believing Labor had reduced unemployment. Rudd blamed Newman for the increase in unemployment because he reduced the public service by 14,000 when in actual fact unemployment fell in Queensland. Rudd dare not mention about the two Labor states of Tasmania and South Australia who have 8.5% and 7.2 % unemployment.

Labor gloats about what they have achieved. and that is very little by the way, but it is all on borrowed money. Most of the money they have borrowed has been wasted.

Gary Johns remonstrates Labors mess and what the incoming Coalition will have to face to clean it up.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...g-up-labors-mess/story-fn8v83qk-1226704567737

Calliope said:

I just watched part of a sickening interview of Rudd on Ch 7 by Rudd-lover Mark Riley. Riley asked him if he was concerned about losing his seat. This was the bullsh!t reply:

"You know something Mark, I'm not faintly concerned about what happens to me. I am only concerned about what happens to Australia."

With the usual Rudd hyperbole he also said that Abbott was going to waste billions on PPL to millionaire women.

The man is a psychopathic liar, i.e. he actually believes his own lies.

Click to expand...

If Kev could dredge and widen the Brisbane River to get the nation's primary naval port within his own electorate to save his political hide, he would.

rent seeking 101 - http://www.whosnext.com.au/

Up until now, salary sacrificing a car (also known as novated leasing) has been a common and affordable way for employees to drive a car.

Seems there's no other way into car ownership.

I wonder if we'll see novated leases for housing as the answer to home affordability.

Calliope said:

With the usual Rudd hyperbole he also said that Abbott was going to waste billions on PPL to millionaire women.

The man is a psychopathic liar, i.e. he actually believes his own lies.

Click to expand...

Is it not true that the Abbott PPL is as available to millionaire women as to those on the average wage, with fewer assets?

Julia said:

Is it not true that the Abbott PPL is as available to millionaire women as to those on the average wage, with fewer assets?

Click to expand...

I believe there is only about 2% of women on $150,000 and there would be a very small percentage of that 2 % who would fall pregnant. Most of those type of women are career women and most of them would not even be married and most of them would be of mature age any way. Isn't the scheme capped at $150.000?

I heard on QandA on Monday night where the lowest paid women would be paid $5,000 more on Abbott's PPL than the current system under Labor. Kelly O'Dwyer could not pin down Bill Shorten to fessing up to it which means she was most likely correct.

noco said:

I believe there is only about 2% of women on $150,000 and there would be a very small percentage of that 2 % who would fall pregnant. Most of those type of women are career women and most of them would not even be married and most of them would be of mature age any way. Isn't the scheme capped at $150.000?

Click to expand...

Yes I doubt if many (or any) millionaire women would be eligible. Most would be widows or past breeding age. In America millionaires are on average 61 years of age. I imagine it is similar here. Rudd never misses an opportunity to play the class warfare card.

Now the good uncle psycho, he of the 'rat f*****s' school of diplomacy, is trying to profit off a thousand dead Syrians by saying Abbott couldn't deal with rubber stamping the us plan of action. Wow, he really is entrenched in his krudd bubble. My favorite is him cryptically telling news journos today to stop giving him a hard time and to watch media watch!! then apparently that evil hairdresser got him all wrong and hurt his feelings. He is certifiable, crazier even than Latham. Only the alp can deliver such vaudeville.

sydboy007 said:

I'm happy to debate you on your choice of Abbotts policies. maybe pick the one that most makes you want to vote for him and let the discussion start.

Click to expand...

The policy that makes me want to vote for him is his determination to get rid of the malignant, lying, deceitful, nasty, malicious and corrupt Kevin Rudd and his gang of sycophants.

I now await the Rudd or Milne policy that attracts you most.

Calliope said:

The policy that makes me want to vote for him is his determination to get rid of the malignant, lying, deceitful, nasty, malicious and corrupt Kevin Rudd and his gang of sycophants.

I now await the Rudd or Milne policy that attracts you most.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Doesn't seem a policy per se but hey whatever rocks your boat.

As for myself, so far not a single party inspires me to vote for them. From my perspective so far no political party is willing to tackle the major issues facing this country. Issues like:

* Unsustainable welfare - seems we'll be increasing this

* The turn of demographics and the fact we've left beind the favourable tail winds of improving dependency ratios and have been experiencing for the last 3 years an increasing number of dependents per worker.

* Degrading infrastructure - little interest in fixing this and I don't understand Abbotts hatred of funding rail.

* Housing affordability - neither of the major parties really mentions this, and until they are willing to tackle the perverse effect of half rate CGT and full rate NG, along with improving supply side issues, the country will continue to be crippled by renters and mortgagees paying ridiculous levels of their income for the basic need of shelter.

So realy Calliope, why vote for any of them? They're not doing much for the country, they're not being honest with the public about the issues we're facing. It seems the magic pudding is alive. They can spend spend spend, and for Abbott cut taxes as well.

So the lie is you can have it all - higher spending, lower taxes, just vote for ME.

I've only every heard you criticise Abbott over his policies. I've never heard you praise anything that he says he'll do when in power, though I suspect you probably favour his blood oath to remove carbon trading and set the hounds of beaucracy across the land to implement his DA. Your hatred of Labor is clear, but does anyone really know what Abott stands for. The guy can't even read an electricity bill - http://tinyurl.com/8rno7o4 - so I'm not sure how he's supposed to "manage' the economy (another lie the politicians tell us), and he's as ethically challeged as any politician out there - his spinning a changing message to different audiences shows this.

So why don't you apply the same yard stick to Labor and Coalition?

ps check out the net savings rate for the private sector, especially during the Howard Costello years. Pretty scary the perverse effect of halving the CGT had when it combind with NG and house price inflation. I dobut it will happen again, but Abbott say he wants to take us back to those halcyon years. The country can't support an increase in debt like that again, and I'd hope Abbot doesn't do a Howard on those with a mortgage and get interest payments as a proportion of disposable income back up to the recession we had to have levels.

I have no idea if the following really is from a retired RAAF Wing Commander. But I agree that Rudd’s recent visit to Afghanistan was nothing more than an expensive publicity stunt designed to snare the vote of the defense forces.

Ditto for Rudd’s latest stunt to move the naval fleet from Sydney to Brisbane – just another scam to try and shore up his Queensland vote. He didn’t even have the decency to discuss it with NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell, or even to let him know.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Rudd didn’t even let some of his own cabinet know. When he announced his policy for the development of Northern Australia earlier this month, Bill Shorten admitted that Rudd had told him about it ‘only yesterday’.
The northern Australian development policy is pretty much the same one put forward by the LNP earlier that Labor were so critical of.

Their latest plan for the naval fleet is the direct opposite of their own policy just a few months ago when in their white paper on defense, they outlined all the reasons why moving the fleet to Brisbane was not a viable option.

I don’t think it will happen if Rudd is re-elected – he has no intention of doing it, just like he has no intention of doing some of the other things he’s bangs on about – they’re just publicity stunts that he hopes will be vote winners.



From a retired ex RAAF Wing Commander

KRUDD & the first shiela's trip to Afghanistan via a RAAF KC30-A. A330 Tanker was specifically tasked for just him, wife & media visit to Afghanistan .
The trip went via Perth and was a very quick over & back task.

What a complete waste of taxpayer funds for a photo op with the troops, when we have a massive cutback in defence spending.

This trip will not have come out of No 34 VIP Squadrons funding for Prime Ministerial travel. The KC30-A Tanker belongs & funding expenditure is allocated by No 33 Squadron at Amberley.

In effect he is stealing funding from defence operations for his own political purposes. Is there no end to this prick's selfishness, self aggrandisement, waste and contempt to the Armed Services and the Australian Tax Payer?

And this while most of my retired military friends are living impoverished lives on their Labor Party deliberately reduced (Defence Forces Retirement Benefit Fund) superannuation indexation. In my case it is minus $550 a fortnight since I retired and I was a Wing Commander. Most of the retired guys were Warrant Officers or lesser ranks and really struggling after serving their country all their working lives.

It's a bloody disgrace! About $560 million would repay it all back which is about a week's worth of illegal immigrants under Rudd!

Syd I actually respect the fact that you support your argument with some substance.
However you shoot yourself in the foot showing your true colours when you write these furphies

Degrading infrastructure - little interest in fixing this and I don't understand Abbotts hatred of funding rail.

Click to expand...

Hatred of Rail?? I haven't seen any evidence of this plus its a state responsibility. Infrastructure will improve under his government IMO.

The guy can't even read an electricity bill - http://tinyurl.com/8rno7o4

Click to expand...

Really you go back to 2012 for this?? The "guy" is a Rhodes scholar at worst he is guilty of a little spin like most pollies.

Disclaimer: I am a liberal voter and proud of it.

sydboy007 said:

I joined ASF to share ideas and to learn.

Click to expand...

Syd

I was really pleased to see that you came on this forum to learn.

OK then, here’s a lesson you can take home with you.....DON’T EMPLOY INCOMPETENT PEOPLE.

Don’t employ an incompetent painter to paint your house, or an incompetent mechanic to work on your car, or an incompetent accountant to handle your taxation affairs.
And don’t employ an incompetent manager to run your country.

The last six years have shown us that Labor and Rudd are incompetent to run Australia. For most of that time we’ve enjoyed the biggest resources boom in our history, yet in spite of inheriting a no debt situation and a big budget surplus, Labor managed to turn them into a huge debt and a big budget deficit. This is in spite of whacking on one new tax after another to try and shore up their coffers. Year after year after they’ve promised to deliver a budget surplus, and have failed to do so every time. Meantime, our debt has kept climbing.
Year after year they’ve given us lies and spin. Year after year they’ve been clueless on how to fix the illegal boat people debacle which they created.
Year after year they’ve wasted billions of dollars on stupid expenditure that has virtually no lasting benefit for our country. Year after year they’ve cut funding to such essentials as customs services, health, defense, and universities.
Year after year they’ve fought among themselves like lions around a zebra carcass.

Ask yourself this question......’Is this the sort of government I want to run my country’?
If you answer yes to this question, then you’re a fool. If you answer no, then vote the bastards out on September 7 and give somebody else a go. If the next mob don’t do any better, then vote them out too at the first opportunity.
But at least show enough respect for your country to toss out these incompetent clowns who have been running Australia into the ground for six long years.

noco said:

I believe there is only about 2% of women on $150,000 and there would be a very small percentage of that 2 % who would fall pregnant. Most of those type of women are career women and most of them would not even be married and most of them would be of mature age any way. Isn't the scheme capped at $150.000?

.

Click to expand...

Bit sad if true. I only know two career women personally, both earn over $150,000. Both have kids. one is a politician.
The other one went recently with the family to visit all the Harry Potter sites in England with the kids. She gets looked after with regards to maternity leave at full pay where she works anyway. In future, under this scheme instead of the company supplying it, it will be the government, i.e. us.

Knobby22 said:

Bit sad if true. I only know two career women personally, both earn over $150,000. Both have kids. one is a politician.
The other one went recently with the family to visit all the Harry Potter sites in England with the kids. She gets looked after with regards to maternity leave at full pay where she works anyway. In future, under this scheme instead of the company supplying it, it will be the government, i.e. us.

Click to expand...

Someone should have told here they're in New Zealand

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_country_are_the_Harry_Potter_films_filmed

waza1960 said:

Syd I actually respect the fact that you support your argument with some substance.
However you shoot yourself in the foot showing your true colours when you write these furphies

Hatred of Rail?? I haven't seen any evidence of this plus its a state responsibility. Infrastructure will improve under his government IMO.

Really you go back to 2012 for this?? The "guy" is a Rhodes scholar at worst he is guilty of a little spin like most pollies.

Disclaimer: I am a liberal voter and proud of it.

Click to expand...

Good for you waza.. Unlike sydboy who claims he is a neutral. It is obvious what sydboy does stand for. He is wrapped up in the politics of envy and class warfare. He nags away at me because I don't criticise Abbott's policies. Frankly, I don't give a toss about Abbott's policies. All I ask of him is that he rid this country of a malignant cancer. I see it as a case of decency versus evil.

In my electorate the choice is clear cut. The choice is between Mal Brough, a decent man who I know well, and Peter Slipper who is probably the most despised man in the electorate, but you will never hear any criticism of him from sydboy.

His hatreds are more well defined...Howard, Costello, Abbott, Turnbull. Telstra...

Syd

As an aside you continually rant about the negative impact of the 50% CGT discount and the impact on revenue and as no one has queried your stance l raise the following. This was introduced as part of a package of CGT reform of which the major component was the removal of indexation of the cost base. My understanding was the calculated net revenue impact of the changes was a significant and increasing government tax take over time. The taxing of nominal (not necessarily real) gains accrued over time at full marginal tax rates in one year would have been a very hard sell, given even with the 50% discount it represented a big tax increase.

noco said:

I believe there is only about 2% of women on $150,000 and there would be a very small percentage of that 2 % who would fall pregnant. Most of those type of women are career women and most of them would not even be married and most of them would be of mature age any way. Isn't the scheme capped at $150.000?

Click to expand...

OK, the more appropriate reference would be perhaps to 'millionaire families'.
$150K cap is far too high. I just don't see how you can justify paying wealthy people to have kids.
If any sort of PPL happens it should be something that's negotiated between the woman and her workplace.

The 50% discount to CGT as implemented was poor policy in my view. By allowing the full discount after 12 months, it encouraged speculation which no doubt fed into demand for established residential property. When combined with the removal if CPI indexation of the cost base, long term asset investment was also penalised in both relative and absolute terms.

That's not to say some other form of discount was inappropriate given the combination of relatively low inflation of the time (compared to when CGT was introduced) and high marginal rates of personal income tax.

A more prudent approach would have been to retain CPI indexation of the cost base, grade any other discount in over a number of years and give individual investors the choice of either a CPI indexed cost base or the alternative discount upon disposal of an asset.

As for the current election campaign, The Coalition has released a summery page of savings.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/politics/hockey_reveals_coalition_costings_H0MgKIxaACH8EyuS7y3PNN

drsmith said:

The Coalition has released a summery page of savings.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/politics/hockey_reveals_coalition_costings_H0MgKIxaACH8EyuS7y3PNN

Click to expand...

Summery savings are a pleasant change after our winters of discontent.

Sorry Doc, sometimes I just can't help myself.