Labor Tax Policy, where is it?

Buster said:

G'Day Julia, Nokia,



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"..
Buster

Click to expand...

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

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

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..

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

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,

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

A day after Kevin Rudd was awarded the debate, Peter Costello and John Howard emerged from their Parliament House offices to announce economic management will be front and centre of this election.

Mr Costello says Labor has made a mistake in their tax policy, meaning by 2013 people will have less money in their pockets.

“Kevin Rudd has a policy to make middle-income Australia worse off,” he said.

“To make them pay more tax - for most of them $600 more tax. Because he didn’t do the work and he doesn’t understand the policy.”

Click to expand...

Stay tuned I think there will be more to come.

Cheers

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

The Mint Man said:

This just out...


Stay tuned I think there will be more to come.

Cheers

Click to expand...

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.

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!
.

Click to expand...

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".

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

greggy said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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.