Federal Labor Party discussion

[sydboy007]

And that says it all when you're looking for why people will vote for the alternative, sydboy.

For me it's also the total lack of integrity amongst the Labor Party itself: their backstabbing and disloyalty so absolutely demonstrates that they as individuals will do anything at all, even compromise their most deeply held principles, to hold on to their own seats, and as a party, to hold on to power.

The notion that the purpose of their existence should be the welfare of all Australians and the protection of our way of life seems not even a secondary consideration. Repugnant.

Pretty much agree with you there

But once again, what evidence is there that Abbott is any better. If the independents are to be believed he was pretty much willing to make any kind of deal to become PM?

Abbott had a golden run for at least 18 months. Over that time he could have been detailing policies that would help improve the country, but didn't. He seems to take the populist route most of the time. If he does that when in opposition and miles in front of the polls, what is he going to be like if elected and facing a competent opposition?

As I've said before, at present neither Labor nor Coalition are worthy of my vote.

 

[Julia]

The views on FBT that have been passed to you seem to be incorect, at least at a Federal level. A reduction in car purchases would affect the states due to lower GST revenue, but the impact at a federal level would be if job losses cause unemployment benefits paid to be higher. Still, the claims it will cost working people money I find hard to believe.

It doesn't matter what 'level it's at". Read a bit more widely than you obviously have and you'll find predictions of much that has clearly not been considered by the government in their rush to find some easy money to bolster the budget. I don't have time right now to find it online but there's a pretty clear account in "The Weekend Australian" by Robert Gottliebsen titled "How we can fix the FBT farce".

And from another article on the same subject we have this:

We had the ludicrous spectacle of Industry Minister Kim Carr conceding that the government might have to increase financial support to the local car manufacturing industry, to offset the damage done by the FBT change".

This is precisely the sort of trademark Labor lack of thinking something through before rushing ahead with it.

For the record, I'm not at all opposed to tax perks being withdrawn. They all keep taxes higher for everyone to the benefit of fewer.

 

[FlyingFox]

So all you have left is to denigrate other posters who don't share your viewpoint?

Please follow the posts carefully to see who is denigrating who. I have been down this path once before and will not be drawn into it.

I think history will judge the labor government of the last six years as the worst ever. We pay for these people to represent us - instead we now have billions in debt and little to show for it. Their history of management is dismal at best. They legislated a carbon tax against the will of he people as shown by opinion polls. They allowed over 45,000 arrivals who, by their own admission, are not genuine refugees fleeing persecution at massive cost to taxpayers.

This government is nothing like the labor party of Hawke and Keating. In fact, what do they actually stand for any more except desperation to be in power?

If you carefully read sydboys and my posts, we have never and I repeat NEVER said that the past labour government was a good one. They had some good policies but lacked implementation and they had some horrible policies.

Do you want to know what the biggest issues with the government was. There is only 3.

1) They were a minority government...
2) They tried to please everyone because they had to (see above)...
3) They (like the coalition) believes the good times will never end but it just did ...

What peeves us is the the alternative is meant to be some sort of salvation. Seriously? Tony abbot has said he will get rid of 12,000 public servants yet he is screaming at the top of his lungs re the FBT changes that will affect maybe 10% as many people directly but more likely 1%.

Anyways the will of the people is moulded by what they see in the media... Mining Tax V1 got Rudd kicked out only because the miners ran a better PR campaign (and they always will because they had too much to loose). Where are the mining ads now?

The carbon tax? The biggest reason for price hikes in electricity was the privatisation of assets. I am unfamiliar with the history of the privatisation and who started it but it has continued unabated under all governments. The Carbon tax was a convenient guise for businesses to charge even more ala brumbies bakery. If a airline charges me $2 to offset my carbon but 7.70 to pay by credit card, the tax is not the biggest issue now is it? Just to be clear, I don't agree with the carbon pricing as it was implemented.

The problem is that everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. Here's some great quotes to end my rant...

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - AF Tytler

 

[Calliope]

why do you feel it is OK to make snide remarks? What evidence do you have than I'm a "rusted on leftie"? Could you limit yourself to just to the factual information rather than personal attacks?

Snide remarks??? Personal attacks??? It is just an obvious conclusion. What makes you think I should respond to your interrogation? If you want "factual " information do your own research. You are just upset because I prefer Abbott to Rudd. Why I do is of course none of your business, but blind Freddie could work it out. To use your words you will just "have to suck it up".

Can I just use a few quotes from you to highlight what you've done (they can be found in the gay marriage thread)

* Your posts are all unfounded presumptions # 499

* Making unfounded accusations and abusing people who don't think like you, is the worst form of bigotry. #499

* I suppose you colluded to put me down. The attack was out of the blue. What is your motive? Just spite? Why? #522

This is, of course, off topic. The thread is not about me. If you put as much time into researching Rudd as you do me you might have second thoughts on inflicting him and his union dominated caucus on us for another three years.

Your mate FF thinks;

No point fighting the good fight. All you will get is snide remarks and attacks ... no discussion of substance. Calliope is just going to take the Pierre de Fermet route, "I have all the answers but there isn't enough space on this forum to write it.( i.e I can't be bothered articulating them)". Easiest way to win an argument, isn't it.

More off topic nonsense!!! I was not aware that I had entered into an argument or discussion on this thread.:shake: But I have been subjected to continual and repetitive nagging from sydboy. I can only give you and syd the same reply Abbott gave to repetitive nagging questioning. .."calm down".

 

[sails]

It doesn't matter what 'level it's at". Read a bit more widely than you obviously have and you'll find predictions of much that has clearly not been considered by the government in their rush to find some easy money to bolster the budget. I don't have time right now to find it online but there's a pretty clear account in "The Weekend Australian" by Robert Gottliebsen titled "How we can fix the FBT farce".

And from another article on the same subject we have this:


This is precisely the sort of trademark Labor lack of thinking something through before rushing ahead with it.

For the record, I'm not at all opposed to tax perks being withdrawn. They all keep taxes higher for everyone to the benefit of fewer.

As I see it there are several industries reliant on government tax relief or handouts. Clearly the car industry is one and by changing the tax rules has severely hurt the industry. Child care is another industry which would collapse if government support were to be suddenly pulled. I understand that Therese Rein (Rudd's wife) has built her business on government handouts - what would have happened to her cash cow if those handouts had been scrapped?

Labor's spin that people just need to keep a log book isn't going to pick car sales back up. So now labor are either going to have to pay more money to the industry to keep them afloat or pay for more unemployed people. Real clever...not!

 

[sails]

Please follow the posts carefully to see who is denigrating who. I have been down this path once before and will not be drawn into it. ...

Then why put out the bait???

Oh and don't give me the minority sob story - labor had effectively had control of BOTH houses for the last two years. Goodness knows how much unwanted legislation has been pushed through!

 

[sydboy007]

It doesn't matter what 'level it's at". Read a bit more widely than you obviously have and you'll find predictions of much that has clearly not been considered by the government in their rush to find some easy money to bolster the budget. I don't have time right now to find it online but there's a pretty clear account in "The Weekend Australian" by Robert Gottliebsen titled "How we can fix the FBT farce".

And from another article on the same subject we have this:


This is precisely the sort of trademark Labor lack of thinking something through before rushing ahead with it.

For the record, I'm not at all opposed to tax perks being withdrawn. They all keep taxes higher for everyone to the benefit of fewer.

from Tristan Edis in Business spectator today

What has the government done? It has removed the ability for people to use the leasing of a car as an income tax deduction (and also avoiding GST on petrol) by default (known as the ‘statutory method’), without providing any evidence that the car is used for work purposes. Instead people will have to provide evidence via a log book that demonstrates that the car is a genuine working expense.

The statutory method of calculating fringe benefits tax on cars was originally introduced as an alternative to the administrative pain of keeping a log book. Instead of producing a log book, the tax department would assume a certain proportion of work use for a car based on how many kilometres the car travelled in a year.

Leasing and salary packaging companies sprung up to exploit the loop hole, as did fuel card companies.

The end of year cross country trip to clock up the kilometres on the car over key statutory method thresholds became something of folklore in offices offering salary packaging to employees. One would also regularly hear the anecdote of people lending their car to friends and families to do a return trip from Melbourne to Sydney. And then there was the March scramble to get the kilometres up to the threshold you’d nominated to the tax department before the FBT year ended.

We could then leave it up to these nurses and not-for-profit employees whether they want to use the extra cash to pay for a new car and petrol if that’s what they’d like. But no doubt many would prefer to spend this money on something else which would make them happier. And we’d free them and their employer from the administrative hassle and cost of dealing with salary packaging.

In addition people who are very well paid will pay a fairer share of their tax obligations.

Yes some people will lose jobs in salary packaging and leasing finance companies and in car dealerships. No doubt many of them are lovely people whose employment we should be concerned about. But the economy will be undoubtedly better off with these people employed in other careers providing services that people would prefer to a new leased car.

What about the Australian car manufacturing industry I hear you say. If you think they need more subsidies, then wouldn’t you want taxpayers’ money targeted at these locally made cars rather than dispersed across BMWs, Mercedes and Hondas as well?

- - - Updated - - -

As I see it there are several industries reliant on government tax relief or handouts. Clearly the car industry is one and by changing the tax rules has severely hurt the industry. Child care is another industry which would collapse if government support were to be suddenly pulled. I understand that Therese Rein (Rudd's wife) has built her business on government handouts - what would have happened to her cash cow if those handouts had been scrapped?

Labor's spin that people just need to keep a log book isn't going to pick car sales back up. So now labor are either going to have to pay more money to the industry to keep them afloat or pay for more unemployed people. Real clever...not!

IIRC it was Howard who introduced the Child care rebates? personally i see them as providing a very poor return on the money spent.

Federal Govts of all stripes have propped up the car industry for decades. Why we need to provide further assistance to them I don't know. We'd be better off taking foreign subsidised cars and letting overseas tax payers help buy us a new car.

Why is the Government now responsible for the level of car sales??

It's a bit like saying cutting back on middle class welfare will cause retail sales to be lower and higher unemployment, so we can't cut them.

 

[Calliope]

Amanda Vanstone knows what is so scary about Rudd. However as is normal on these threads we have people who deny being Rudd supporters but go to great lengths to denigrate Abbott, the Coalition and former PM Howard and then squeal that calling them "Left" is a personal attack.

So, for the guy who was PM of the government that trashed our border controls to now be talking about fixing the problem is extraordinary. He shows no embarrassment at all. Not a scintilla of pink enters his endlessly cheery face.

He seems to me to be like the guy that pours petrol through your house, strikes a match at the back door, takes a quick walk around the block and then shows up on your front lawn manning the fire hose and assuring bystanders that he has the fire under control. If you watched it in a psycho thriller movie it would be unsettlingly spooky. There is something very sinister about the pyromaniac turned fireman.

 

[Knobby22]

You could argue that he is doing it to neuter Abbott and in the modern world of cynical politics, this is a just tactic.
Vanstone knows that, The liberal party is acting like a dog whose food bowl has been taken away.

What Rudd cannot argue is that he has repeated the same mistake as Gillard and stated he will achieve a surplus in 3 years. Ross Gittens in the Age is scathing about it. Also stating "Can the mere replacement of an unpopular woman with a popular man make a world of difference? Does it transform Labor's six-year record in government from disastrous to fair enough?" Fair question. I don't think so.

 

[drsmith]

So basically you're saying to not make any changes to the tax system untill a totally comprehensive overhaul of the entire system can be done?

If a lot of jobs are lost over this change, then one has to question if the whole industry was built upon a tax break that was not actually supporting businesses?

A broader tax reform context and more consultation is not necessarily limited to a totally comprehensive overhaul of the entire system, but your reference to that is interesting in that it's exactly what a Rudd government initiated in its first term (Henry review).

With regard to job losses, any change is generally going to have winners and losers. The key to managing such change is to maximise the winners relative to the losers and this is where consultation and transition comes in.

As a matter of general principal, I'm against negative gearing of salary income, but I also realise that policy change in this area would also need to be transitional. Do you remember how Paul Keating discovered that the rug couldn't be pulled from that in one go ?

 

[Calliope]

You could argue that he is doing it to neuter Abbott and in the modern world of cynical politics, this is a just tactic.

You could also argue that Rudd is trying to do it by telling a deliberate lie that will outrank Gillard's big lie.

From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees. Asylum seekers taken to Christmas Island will be sent to Manus and elsewhere in Papua New Guinea for assessment of their refugee status.

From the document;

"Commencing on the day of announcement any unauthorised maritime arrival entering Australian waters will be liable for transfer to Papua New Guinea".

PMG PM said;

We will take as much as we can on the capacities that we have on the ground… You can’t just simply estimate a number

.

It will take better spinmeisters than we have on this thread to reconcile these three statements. Pick which is the big lie.

 

[Knobby22]

That's just nit picking. There is a lot of fear in the Murdoch press.
The boats will stop coming once they know they are going to New Guinea. The rest is just a beat-up.

The fact Rudd isn't announcing an election today makes me wonder what his next rabbit is that he is going to pull out of his hat. I really am impressed with his political skills but fear him as a Prime Minister.

 

[drsmith]

The boats will stop coming once they know they are going to New Guinea.

The biggest question of all is to what extent is Labor's heart in it, in particular after the election.

The people smugglers might themselves choose to ease the pace till then, depending on their knowledge of domestic Australian politics.

 

[Calliope]

That's just nit picking. There is a lot of fear in the Murdoch press.

You certainly are a trusting soul. Rudd/Gillard/Rudd have a history of talking big and achieving little. This scheme will unravel before the election, even if it is held early.

 

[Knobby22]

You certainly are a trusting soul. Rudd/Gillard/Rudd have a history of talking big and achieving little. This scheme will unravel before the election, even if it is held early.

Gillard and the previous immigration meeting were incompetent. Rudd has already done it as foreign affairs is his forte. I am more worried about his domestic competence.

 

[bunyip]

The boats will stop coming once they know they are going to New Guinea.

Will they?? I hope you’re right, because if you’re not it will be Australia footing the enormous cost of processing them in PNG.

An Afghan man who is legally settled in Australia was interviewed on TV a few nights back. He was asked “If the present government policy of taking no boat people at all, but sending them to PNG instead, was in place when you were considering coming here by boat, would you have still come’?

His answer was ‘Yes, because in my homeland my life was in grave danger every single day, and it was difficult finding enough food to eat. At least in PNG I’d be well fed and I’d be in a safe environment’.

Will his sentiments be shared by many thousands of people who are planning to jump on a boat and head our way? I don’t know – I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

The fact Rudd isn't announcing an election today makes me wonder what his next rabbit is that he is going to pull out of his hat. I really am impressed with his political skills but fear him as a Prime Minister.

I share your concerns about once again having Rudd as our PM. He was bloody hopeless last time with his economic mismanagement, his disgraceful performance on border protection, and his numerous ill-considered policies that turned to dust after first wasting billions of dollars. He had grandiose plans but little practical ability in terms of thinking things through and considering all the pros and cons. Now he’s shaping up pretty much the same way as last time. The man was incompetent and he still is.
Just as a business owner wouldn’t even consider renewing the contract of a manager who had proven himself grossly incompetent in running the business, nor should we, the Australian voters, consider renewing the grossly incompetent Kevin Rudd’s contract.
I say to people....’If you can't bring yourself to vote for Abbot, then vote informal, but don’t betray your country by putting back into power a man like Rudd who was incompetent and completely out of his depth as leader of our country'.

 

[Knobby22]

I don't dislike Abbott. But I do find him a bit limited and am unsure how good he will be as Prime Minister.

 

[Calliope]

I share your concerns about once again having Rudd as our PM. He was bloody hopeless last time with his economic mismanagement, his disgraceful performance on border protection, and his numerous ill-considered policies that turned to dust after first wasting billions of dollars.

You can add this PNG scheme to uncosted monetary disasters like the NBN, pink bats, BER etc.

Australia and PNG agreed on Friday that asylum seekers travelling to Australia by boat will be turned away, processed and potentially resettled in PNG.
In exchange, Australia has a agreed to a raft of infrastructure programs in the university, roads, health and law and order sector.
"The costings for the Ramu-Madang highway has not been done, design and costings for of course Lae hospital has not been done. So it costs into millions of Kina," Mr O'Neill told journalists in Port Moresby upon his return from Brisbane on Monday.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ed/story-e6frfkui-1226683208284#ixzz2ZkvGbIgw

 

[sydboy007]

A broader tax reform context and more consultation is not necessarily limited to a totally comprehensive overhaul of the entire system, but your reference to that is interesting in that it's exactly what a Rudd government initiated in its first term (Henry review).

With regard to job losses, any change is generally going to have winners and losers. The key to managing such change is to maximise the winners relative to the losers and this is where consultation and transition comes in.

As a matter of general principal, I'm against negative gearing of salary income, but I also realise that policy change in this area would also need to be transitional. Do you remember how Paul Keating discovered that the rug couldn't be pulled from that in one go ?

Sometimes when you are planning to remove a tax break that is being abused you can't let the public know otherwise there's a mad rush to take advantage of it before its closed down.

This happened pre GST for house purchases

I do find it sad that Govts of all stripes love to set up a commission and then cherry pick a few of the easiest options presented. It would have been good if the Henry review could have been mostly implemented, but how easy that would have been during a minority Govt I'm not sure.

I suppose in a few weeks we'll start to get the Coalition policies thrown at us. It will be interesting to see what they are proposing cmpared to Labor. I wonder if they will predict a surplus in the near future? With low inflation, low interest rates, share market not performing that great, unemployment slowly rising it's going to be hard to find the nerve to cut back on spending that has little benefit. The MSM loves a good beat up story.

- - - Updated - - -

. He had grandiose plans but little practical ability in terms of thinking things through and considering all the pros and cons. Now he’s shaping up pretty much the same way as last time. The man was incompetent and he still is.[/I]

One could apply this to Abbott as well. His 100 dams go north "policy" thought bubble shows that. It makes good politics because it gives the nationals a carrot to dangle to their electorates, but if they try to go ahead with it there'll be billions of dollars wasted.

 

[sptrawler]

One could apply this to Abbott as well. His 100 dams go north "policy" thought bubble shows that. It makes good politics because it gives the nationals a carrot to dangle to their electorates, but if they try to go ahead with it there'll be billions of dollars wasted.

I for the life of me can't understand why you keep rolling out this rubbish endlessly.
Like I have said on numerous occassions IMO we have a brighter long term future as a food bowl. Than we will as a manufacturing, mining or technology based economy.
We can't compete with China, Europe or the U.S in manufacturing or technology, to think we can is childish. We may score the occassional breakthrough, but we will never be the world leader, or even close.
Mining is finite and our children may also reap some benefit from it, hower it is finite.
The worlds population is increasing and becoming more affluent, they will need more food and it will be an exponential increase.
Australia is fortunate in having one of the best climates and biggest area of undeveloped arrable land in the world. It is ridiculous, to not exploit it.
Have a read of this article, it isn't rocket science.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-22/mining-fuelled-agriculture/4640406

To keep laughing it down without logical basis, makes no sense, but that is becoming the norm. lol